ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Low Carbon Industries

Albert Owen: What recent meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues on new employment and training opportunities in low carbon industries in Wales.

Peter Hain: It is nice to be back, even though my appointment was marked by an earthquake a few miles from my home. May I also pay tribute to my close friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), one of Wales's outstanding politicians? We have followed each other in and out of this job for 10 years. He had regular such meetings with ministerial colleagues—in particular through the National Economic Council—and I will continue to do so.

Albert Owen: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome him back to his role. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for the excellent contribution that he has made in government to Wales and to the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Last Friday, I attended a skills building competition at Coleg Menai in my constituency, where I saw at first hand young craftsmen and students learning and developing skills for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that Wales is well placed to be at the forefront of the green revolution to come, and does he further agree that we need a skills sharing strategy to build a pool of skills in energy generation for the future, including renewables, clean coal and nuclear power?

Peter Hain: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is an outstanding Member of Parliament for his constituency. I am aware of the excellent training opportunities available at Coleg Menai, which have been achieved through additional funding of £4 million from the Welsh Assembly Government for its energy and fabrication centre. That funding would be slashed if the Conservative party ever got into power.

Jennifer Willott: Last year I surveyed businesses in Cardiff that install and develop renewable technologies. The overwhelming majority said that business was falling because it was so difficult for families to get grants to install those technologies in their homes and people could not afford them. Since then, access to those grants has become even more difficult. Will the Secretary of State liaise with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that more money is available for families to install such technologies in their homes, so that we can ensure that this key Welsh industry can be developed and grow further?

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Lady that the more funding we can get to assist people to put renewable energy installations into their homes the better, but of course the UK budget under this Government provided an extra £1.4 billion in additional support for the low carbon economy. She may know that the Welsh Assembly Government have invested some £4.5 million in the Carbon Trust to help it to develop its business plan. All of that funding is part of our investment programme driving forward our objective of a low carbon economy.

Lembit �pik: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his return. He knows that I thought that it was utterly unjust that he was pushed out of office on trumped-up charges; it is good that he has now proved his innocence and returned to the Front Bench.
	Montgomeryshire is a pioneer in low carbon industry through the work of the Centre for Alternative Technology. However, it is concerned that local authorities in Wales spend less on school maintenance and upkeep than any other council service, to the detriment of the environment. How can we expect to instil a sense of environmental responsibility and global citizenship if the next generation is being taught in schools that are environmentally not fit for use?

Peter Hain: The answer may well be to get a Labour county council, to provide the additional funding. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and for the support that I have had across the House. He raises an important question, and if there is any other help that I can give him in securing his objectives I will be happy to do so.

Cheryl Gillan: As this could be the last time that I am at the Dispatch Box under your auspices, Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank you for your courtesy towards me and my Front-Bench team and for your service to this House, and to wish you well?
	In welcoming the return of the new Secretary of State, I also wish to express my admiration for his predecessor. I have enjoyed working with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), a decent and straightforward man. We will miss his common sense and dedication to Wales. I wonder what sort of Prime Minister we have, who can so easily dispense with his services.
	In January the Government announced a 2.3 billion scheme for the car industry, including 1 billion to help it develop low carbon technologies. The German, French and Italian Governments have all delivered on their schemes. What has happened to the money for British and Welsh companies, and why are they the last to receive the help that was promised?

Peter Hain: The money is coming through, although it would be threatened if the Conservatives ever got into power. I echo the hon. Lady's remarks about you, Mr. Speaker. We have worked together for a long time. I am also grateful for the welcome that the hon. Lady gave me. I have been very fond of her over the years and I was glad to see that she survived the twin gaffes of advertising for a researcher for whom knowledge of devolution was desirable but not necessary, and letting the cat out of the bag on plans to reverse the devolution of higher education.

Port Security

Stephen Crabb: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on levels of border security at Welsh ports.

Wayne David: Recently, the number of staff at ports of entry into Wales has increased significantly. The UK Border Agency has recently reopened its office at Pembroke Dock.

Stephen Crabb: I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, would like to welcome the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) back to this important office of state. He will be aware that since he last held that office, operations have begun at the first of two major liquefied natural gas facilities at Milford Haven and work has begun on the new 2,000 MW power station at Pembroke. Near the port of Milford Haven, a major concentration of vital energy infrastructure is emerging, comprising important oil, gas and power facilities. Will he give a commitment today that he will sit down with the new Home Secretary to discuss security arrangements at the port and, in particular, consider the level of resourcing for Dyfed-Powys police, who are operating under severe financial constraints? The security burdens created by the new power facilities and energy infrastructure are creating an additional burden for them.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman referred to the new liquefied natural gas terminalsI am glad that he welcomed themand to the new power station that will be built there in the near future. As he said, construction has already commenced. That is a tremendous boost to the local economy, and I am glad that he recognises its importance. Obviously, the issue that he raised about policing and potential counter-terrorist threats is an important one. Discussions have already taken place with my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and they will continue to take place. The hon. Gentleman can be certain that we are mindful of the importance of the matter and that we will do our utmost to ensure that proper protection is installed for the areas to which he referred.

Si�n James: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government regarding ports in Wales and rail links, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where the docks are so important and where there are competing needs on rail and freight matters?

Wayne David: My hon. Friend has referred to another important issue. It is vital for the port of Swansea, which is a dynamic and vital part of the south Wales economy, to be fully integrated into the transport network of south Wales as a whole. I know that the Welsh Affairs Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member, will be studying this issue in the near future and plans to visit different parts of the European Union to learn lessons. It is vital that we move as quickly as we can towards having a comprehensive, integrated and intermodal transport system in south Wales and throughout Wales as a whole.

David Jones: Port security in Wales is the joint responsibility of the four Welsh police forces, but the chief constable of North Wales has suggested that national standards for counter-terrorism policing are forever unattainable. Does the Minister acknowledge that the current fragmented model for policing our ports is no longer adequate, and will he urge the Home Secretary to listen to the advice of Lord Stevens, who has concluded that only a dedicated national border security force can protect our ports properly?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that greater integration is already taking place. We have seen changes with regard to the UK Border Agency, and in Pembroke Dock, for example, which the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) mentioned, we are seeing that integration taking place. We have seen, before our very eyes, members of staff being trained in a range of activities so that they can comprehensively fulfil their role. In Wales as a whole, greater co-operation and co-ordination between police forces is vital. That is firmly on the agenda, and both the Wales Office and the Home Office fully endorse it.

Nia Griffith: My hon. Friend will be aware of the vital role that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs plays in protecting our borders and ports. Would he be willing to seek a meeting with the Treasury about the confusion that reigns about moving Swansea staff into the high street in Swansea, together with staff from Llanelli, leaving an underused office in Llanelli? Perhaps that could be reconsidered.

Wayne David: Reorganisation is taking place. Streamlining must occur, and we must have the most effective service that we can provide. At the same time, we must ensure that resources are effectively used. I understand the concern referred to by my hon. Friend, and I give a commitment to meet her and any other colleagues who wish to meet, so that we can discuss how the situation can be expedited as quickly as possible.

Manufacturing

Nicholas Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on prospects for the manufacturing sector in Wales.

Peter Hain: I had my first meeting with the First Minister on the Welsh economy on Monday. I intend to work closely with the Welsh Assembly Government and ministerial colleagues to ensure that the manufacturing sector, which is so vital to Wales, receives all the help that is needed to come through the global crisis as strongly as possible.

Nicholas Winterton: Welcome back! Way back in 2005, CBI Wales warned that manufacturing in Wales was continuing on a downward trend. More recently, Professor Pham of the Cardiff School of Engineering has argued that a weakness in the Welsh economythe fact that it is dominated by small businesseshas inhibited the growth of a strong research and development base. That is a serious point. Does the Secretary of State agree with Professor Pham, and what can be done to rectify that problem in the Welsh economy?

Peter Hain: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome, and I acknowledge that he has shown a long and committed interest in supporting manufacturing. He may be interested to know that the latest report from the Engineering Employers Federation shows a slight improvement in the Welsh manufacturing sector, with Welsh manufacturers expecting an improvement over the next three months. He may also be encouraged to know that the latest report by the Purchasing Managers Index shows that total business activity has increased for the first time since May 2008, with growth in Wales greater than the UK-wide trend.

Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend will remember the pleas that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made in 1997 for our area to be covered by objective 1 funding. Does he agree that that funding has been important for the whole of the western part of Wales? Does he still wonder why the Secretary of State in post before that date did not apply for objective 1 funding so that Wales could have benefited a lot earlier than it did?

Peter Hain: I certainly do remember the powerful case that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made in representing their constituencies and in persuading me that objective 1 funding should be extended to Denbighshire. Indeed, she is quite right: the shadow Health Secretary announced on the Today programme only this morning plans for a 10 per cent. cut in departmental expenditure limits for all Departments except those covering health, international aid and schools. That would mean savage cuts in spending in Wales, and would also put the whole of the European convergence programme, which has done so much for west Wales and the valleys, in jeopardy.

Roger Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your kindness over the yearseven though you have occasionally confused me with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I also welcome back to his former post the Secretary of State, who faces greater challenges now than ever before. I should also like to thank his predecessor, who was kind enough to meet representatives from a group of manufacturing companies in my constituency.
	Manufacturing is key to the Welsh economy, but Experian recently released a report that suggested that 350,000 manufacturing jobs would be lost across the UK between now and 2010. We know that a significant proportion of those losses will affect Wales's already battered manufacturing sector. On his return to the Cabinet, will the Secretary of State make protecting Welsh manufacturing jobs his No. 1 priority? The last thing we want to see is whole communities left on the scrap heap, as happened in the 1980s and 1990s.

Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly be happy to work with him. I know that the sort of manufacturing that still exists in his constituency is very important. It tends to be made up of small and medium-sized enterprises that need all the support that they can get. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I do not know who was the more prejudiced by the confusion between him and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams).

2012 Olympics and Paralympics

Hywel Francis: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Assembly Government on the establishment of training camps in Wales in preparation for the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.

Wayne David: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues in both the UK and the Welsh Assembly Government on a range of issues, including how Wales can benefit from the 2012 games. Wales has already developed an international reputation for hosting successful major sporting events, and that is reflected in the fact that the Australian Paralympic committee has decided to come to Wales.

Hywel Francis: I thank the Minister for that reply, and welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State back to his former position. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for the work that he did in that post.
	An important feature of the recent report from the Welsh Affairs Committee on the Olympics and Paralympics is the significance that it attaches to the pre-games training camps and the legacy for sporting excellence that they might provide. There are now 31 designated centres across Wales: that is praise indeed for the facilities that exist already, and also for the onessuch as the Glyncorrwg mountain bike centre in my constituencystill to come. Will my hon. Friend the Minister agree to visit some of those centres, and encourage the Minister for the Olympics to do so as well, so that more Olympic and Paralympic teams will come to Wales? He mentioned the example of the Australian Paralympic team that will be based in Walesand the New Zealand Paralympic team, too, will be based in Swansea.

Wayne David: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and for the question that he has just asked. I also thank the Welsh Affairs Committee for the excellent work that it has done, particularly on this important issue. As he knows, the Government are four-square behind all efforts to ensure that Wales derives the greatest benefit from the Olympic games, which are for Britain as a whole, and that includes us. Some 32 sites have been shortlisted for use as pre-games training camps, which demonstrates the commitment and involvement. I also welcome his suggestion that I might visit some of those; I would be happy to do so.

Cheryl Gillan: Like the Minister, I am disappointed that Wales has failed to attract more Olympic events when we have so much to offer international sport. Does he agree that the Welsh Assembly Government's decision, at short notice, to renege on their agreement to fund the Wales Rally GB undermines the attractiveness of Wales as an international sporting venue and could result in a much larger bill? Given his new Secretary of State's remarks as a Back Bencher, will he now ensure that his right hon. Friend gets that decision reversed before more damage is done to Wales's international reputation?

Wayne David: The hon. Lady raises an important issue, on which discussions are continuing. I can tell her that the Secretary of State has already raised it with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government. The important thing that I wish to stress is that, in general, Wales is benefiting from a range of different sporting activities. For example, it hosted the rugby world cup in 1999, the FA cup finals from 2001 to 2006 and rugby's Heineken cup finals, to name but a few, and of course the Ryder cup is coming in the near future. All those events are important, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Wales stays centre stage in a sporting sense.

Jeff Ennis: I ask my question in my capacity as the joint chair of the all-party group on racing and bloodstock industries. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Ffos Las on the opening of the new race course there, which is being put forward as a possible equestrian centre for international teams taking part in horse racing events?

Wayne David: Yes, I certainly offer congratulations as my hon. Friend suggested. It is important that we recognise that sport, and Wales's involvement in it, should be as broadly based as we can possibly make it, and I shall ensure that that is the case.

Patagonia

Hywel Williams: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the policy of UK Border Agency staff at airports towards people from Welsh-speaking communities in Patagonia wishing to enter the UK in order to visit Wales.

Wayne David: The United Kingdom welcomes Patagonians who are visiting Wales. We welcome the fact that they are keen to explore their Welsh heritage, and of course the UKBA does not have any separate policy in relation to Welsh-speaking people from Patagonia.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for that answer. Does he share my outrage, and that of people throughout Wales, including my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), at the treatment of a young Patagonian visitor, Miss Evelyn Calcabrini? She travelled for 35 hours to get to Heathrow, but was summarily ejected and sent back. She is not the only young Welsh Patagonian who has, unfortunately, suffered summary ejection for no good cause that I can see. Will the Under-Secretary therefore use his good offices to facilitate a meeting between myself, my hon. Friend and the immigration Minister, so that this disgraceful stain on our welcome to Welsh Patagonians can be remedied once and for all?

Wayne David: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I am aware of the concerns that he and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) have about the matter. I give my commitment that the Secretary of State and I will meet the relevant Home Office Minister as soon as possible. Clearly the issue is important, and we want it sorted out as quickly as possible.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I, through the Minister, congratulate his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his return to the Front Bench, and also wish the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) all the best for the future?
	The point on the subject of the question has been well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). The Minister knows of the historical cultural connection between Patagonia and Wales. The young woman in question had every right to stay for six months to brush up on the Welsh language. I am grateful for the commitment that the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have given, and I look forward to having a very early meeting with the Minister for Borders and Immigration.

Wayne David: We have already had a conversation about the issue, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Obviously, I cannot refer in any great detail to the case that he cites, but I underline the fact that it is important that the cultural links between Wales and Patagonia be enhanced. We should make sure that everything is done to ensure that free movement can take place.

David Davies: As somebody who has consistently opposed the Government's policy of unlimited immigration, may I say how horrified I was that the young lady in question was turned back for no good reason? May I ask the Minister to ensure that amends are made in some way, and to ensure that she is given the welcome to learn Welsh in Wales that she deserves?

Wayne David: As I just said, it is important that we have the greatest possible cultural interchange between Wales and Patagonia; that is of both historical and contemporary importance. It would not be right for me to go into any great detail about the particular case to which hon. Members have referred, but I underline the commitment that I have made to make sure that meetings take place. We hope that the situation can be resolved and will not arise again.

Welsh Economy

Ann Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on prospects for the Welsh economy.

Peter Hain: We are determined, together, to deliver all the help we can to businesses and employees, and to build a stronger economy for the recovery to come.

Ann Winterton: Unemployment is higher, and is growing more rapidly, in Wales than in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Men have been affected most adversely, and young people between 25 and 34 have experienced the highest percentage increase in unemployment. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the first Minister about trying to alleviate the problem, especially as those with no qualifications are the most vulnerable in the market?

Peter Hain: I would point out to the hon. Lady that there are already 120,000 more jobs in Wales than there were when we came into power in 1997. There are serious unemployment problems, but I ask her to consider how those problems could be addressed by the Conservatives' plans to cut Labour's guarantee that all 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed for a year will receive either a job or training, to cut this year's 60 cash boost for pensioners, and to cut support for families who are under real pressure, and who need to defer interest payments so that they do not lose their homes. I understand her concern, but her policies would cut all support for all those seeking to get a job.

Madeleine Moon: Yesterday Lord Mandelson announced the backdating of the trade credit insurance scheme to October 2008. That will be a huge opportunity for the Welsh manufacturing industry to move forward. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that move, which demonstrates the Labour Government's commitment to supporting the Welsh economy?

Peter Hain: I certainly will, particularly with regard to the furniture industry in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that she will agree that the employment prospects and economic prospects in her constituency can only have been enhanced by the Prime Minister's outstanding leadership of the world at the G20 summit, at which he led the world in a rescue from the global crisis. It is that outstanding leadership that we want to see continue, taking Britain forward; we do not want to be plunged into the terrible cuts that the Conservatives plan for the British economy.

Broadband

Mark Williams: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Assembly Government and ministerial colleagues on policy to provide a universal service for broadband in Wales by 2012.

Wayne David: I have met stakeholders from the public, private and voluntary sectors across the United Kingdom, including Wales. The purpose has been to consult on digital inclusion, in both a social and a geographic sense. The UK and Welsh Assembly Governments are committed to achieving a digital Britain with a universal broadband service for all of the United Kingdom, including, of course, Wales.

Mark Williams: The Minister will be aware of the success of the Assembly's RIBSregional innovative broadband supportprogramme and the six communities, including Cilcennin in Ceredigion, that are part of that project. Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Assembly Government to extend that project, and will he work with BT and the Assembly Government? The universal service commitment is some way from being met and there is real impatience, particularly on the part of small businesses.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman is correct in pointing to the work already being done with regard to his constituency. I know that BT, for example, is closely involved in the work being carried out. There is a good partnership on the issue between ourselves in London and the Welsh Assembly Government. We must make sure that that partnership is rolled forward, and that we achieve our commitment to universal connection as quickly as we can. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I give a personal commitment to take a particular interest and to make sure that that comes about.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Andrew Selous: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 June.

Gordon Brown: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Andrew Selous: Our specialist hospitals are the jewels in the NHS crown, but unfortunately their knowledge and expertise are not always passed on to district general hospitals, which means that some patients undergo inappropriate operations which later have to be reversed by specialist hospitals, or even worse, are prevented from having operations which could free them from pain. Could the Prime Minister spare just 10 minutes to meet the chair of the federation of specialist hospitals to see how matters could be improved?

Gordon Brown: Of course I will, and I think he will understand, as I will understand, that that depends on proper investment in specialist hospitals. He will be as concerned as I am by the remarks of the shadow Health Secretary that he will cut spending in the vital areas that are important to our country. The shadow Health Secretary said that he would review the national health's organisations on a zero basis. He said he wants to ensure that the unit costs considerably reduce, rather than increase. He said this morning that he wants a 10 per cent. reduction in the departmental limits. Before the Conservatives ask for more spending on the health service, they should talk to the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Health Secretary.

Gerald Kaufman: Will the Prime Minister affirm the Labour Government's commitment to maintaining funding for public services such as housing, universities, police, law and order, transport and pensions, and reject the Tory party policy of a 10 per cent. across the board cut, which would take this country back to the worst days of Thatcherism?

Gordon Brown: Specifically, this morning the shadow Health Secretary spoke of
	over three years after 2011 a 10 per cent. reduction in the departmental expenditure limits for other Departments. It is a very tough spending requirement indeed.
	He said that the job of the shadow Chancellor was to be clear about where the spending restraints bite. There can be no doubt that the choice, whenever it comes, is between a Government who are prepared to invest in the future and a Conservative party that will cut.

David Cameron: When even the old-timers are reading out the Whips' handout questions, we know things are really bad for the Government. May I say how pleased I am to see the Prime Minister in his place? Let me be clear about what we think of electoral reform. We want to keep the existing system. We support the link between one MP and one constituency, and we back our system because weak, tired and discredited Governments can be thrown out. We supported the system when we were behind, when we were ahead, when we won, when we lost. Why has the Prime Minister suddenly discovered an interest in changing the electoral system? Does it have anything to do with the fact that his party got 15 per cent. of the vote last week?

Gordon Brown: Finally, after many, many weeks, a question on policy. Is it not remarkable that it has taken that amount of time for the Conservatives to come up with a question? [Hon. Members: Answer.] The statement that I shall make in a few minutes, after 12.30, will deal with exactly those problems. I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are different electoral systems in different parts of the United Kingdom, in many cases with the Conservative party's support. There is a different one in Northern Ireland, a different one in Scotland, a different one in Wales, a different one for the European Parliament, which is based on proportional representation, and a different one in the House of Commons. I shall deal with the issue in the constitutional statement in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eric Illsley.  [ Interruption. ] My apologies, I was too quick. Mr. Cameron.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will agree that it is no good the Prime Minister saying, Wait for the statement, when he has briefed all the details to the press. And, I have to say that, on asking questions about personalities, what is there left to ask when so many members of the Cabinet have walked out because they cannot work with him?
	I want to ask the Prime Minister questions about the issue of electoral reform and the process that he intends to follow. On that issue, does he agree that a truly proportional system has massive drawbacks? Did we not see that on Sunday night, when the British National party, a bunch of fascist thugs, got two members elected to the European Parliament? Does he agree with me that that is a very, very strong argument against proportional systems?

Gordon Brown: Let the whole House send the message that the politics of discrimination, prejudice and bigotry have no part to play in the democratic life of our country. Let us all take action together to expose the racist and bigoted policies of the British National party. And, let us be clear that, on the Labour side of the House, we will do everything in our power to show that the problems that made people vote for the BNP are the problems that we are dealing withon housing, on social justice and on employment. Nobody, however, will support the BNP's anti-Semitic policy or its policy that is even against mixed-race marriage. I believe that the whole country can unite on that.
	What I say about electoral reform, however, is that I have never myself supported the policy of proportional representation for a Westminster Parliament; that has always been my view. The right hon. Gentleman has to accept that the policy of proportional representation exists for the European elections, and I do not see a proposal from his party to change it at the moment. He has to accept also that the Jenkins proposals for the additional vote plus PR laid down criteria by which it would be impossible for the British National party to hold a seateven under the PR systemin the British Parliament, unless it won a constituency seat.

David Cameron: Everyone will agree with what the Prime Minister says about defeating the BNP, and it does mean all mainstream parties making sure that they go door to door and get their voters to go out and vote.
	Let me ask about the process, and let us be clear about what the Prime Minister seems to be considering. We are in the fifth and final year of a Parliament, and there have been reports that a referendum is being considered for before the general election. Can the Prime Minister confirm those reports? Is that something that he is considering?

Gordon Brown: There are no plans for that, and let me just say that when the right hon. Gentleman hears the statement later, he will hear that there is an interest throughout the country in what happens on electoral reform. We published a review [ Interruption. ] I am sorry, but we published a review on electoral reform only a few months ago. That has led to a serious debate in the country, but we are not putting proposals forward today. If I may say so, I said that he had moved on to policy, but there seems to be an element of self-interest in the way that he is approaching [ Interruption. ] Is it not strange [ Interruption. ] Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is getting too noisy [ Interruption. ] Order. I am not getting much help from the Opposition Chief Whip. Maybe I can get a bit of help from him here. It will be a bad day when I have to tell the Opposition Chief Whip to be quiet, but the Prime Minister must be heard.

Gordon Brown: Is it not strange that the Opposition are not even interested in discussing that democratic reform, and that the first questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks on policy are not about the economy, not about the health service, not about education, not about public servicesnot about the issues that the public out there know that we and they are concerned about?

David Cameron: I have to say to the Prime Minister that remarks such as that make him a figure of ridicule across this country. Everyone is entitled to ask what the Prime Minister's motive is. For 12 years there was not a squeak about electoral reform, but now that he has been trashed at two elections he suddenly wants to put it on the agenda.
	This is all of a piece with the Prime Minister treating the nation like foolsexpecting us to believe that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling) is his first choice as Chancellor, and telling us that he cancelled the election because he was going to win it. The Prime Minister said that he had no plans for a referendum. We all know what that meanshe said that he had no plans to put up taxes in 1997. Instead of saying no plans, let him stand up at that Dispatch Box and rule out a referendum.

Gordon Brown: I said that I had no plans, and I repeat that I have no plans. Is it not again remarkable? What MPs are being told by their constituents is that they should concentrate on getting the politics of this country sorted out, on getting us through the recession and on building us a better future. Not one question from the Leader of the Opposition has been about the central issues facing our country.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister has chosen today to make a statement about constitutional reform; he cannot complain that I am asking questions about it. The Prime Minister talks about the economy, but let us be clear about what his legacy will be: not the most useless Government that we have had in historyalthough they arebut the biggest budget deficit in Europe and the biggest that we have had in our history. So let us be clear about no plans or no proposals today, as he put it. A man with no democratic legitimacy, who has never been elected as our Prime Minister, who has been defeated every time the public have been able to vote for him, is now considering trying to fix the election rules before the next general election. Is that not what is happening?

Gordon Brown: First of all, on public spending and deficits, let the right hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposals are for a 10 per cent. cut in most departmental expenditure. If he wishes to raise the question of deficits and debt, let him confirm that the proposal of the shadow Chancellor is now to cut public expenditure by 10 per cent., as confirmed by the shadow Health Secretary this morning.
	Let us have a debate about the choice that really does exist in the country: between a Conservative party that now wants to cut, even at a time of recession, into our basic public services, and a Labour party that wants to invest in them. Let him also be honest with the country that when it comes to calling for an election, he has absolutely no plan for dealing with the recession. He has no policies for dealing with unemployment, no policies for dealing with small businesses and no policies for dealing with the problems of this country. He is an Opposition leader who has no plans for government, and he does not deserve to be in government.

David Cameron: One of my plans for dealing with the recession was the same as the Prime Minister's last weekto sack the Chancellor. The Prime Minister might be talking about a second-preference voting system, but the fact is that he is left with a second-preference Chancellor.
	On the issue of public spending, let us be clear about the answers that the Prime Minister has given. He said last week:
	Public spending is rising every year.
	His Chancellor said:
	I have cut overall public spending.
	The figures that the Prime Minister is hawking around are his own figures. He is planning to cut public spending by 7 per cent. in every Department over the next three years. The next electionwhen he has the guts to call itwill not be about Labour investment versus Tory cuts, but about the mismanagement [Interruption.] It will be about the mismanagement of the public finances, the appalling deficit that he has left and his plan for cuts.
	Let me just ask the Prime Minister this question. On the issue of electoral reform, why not admit that the current system gives the country the chance to throw out a Government who are weak, divided and incompetent? That election is what we should be having now.

Gordon Brown: Let me read the figures for public spending, so that there is absolutely no doubt about the truth of what I am saying and that the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Public spending this year is 621 billion; it rises next year to 672 billionthat is this financial year. It then rises to 702 billion, then to 717 billion, then to 738 billion and then to 758 billion. Those are public spending rises. The only party proposing a cut in public spending is the Conservative party.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right. At the next election, there will be a choice: a choice between a Government who helped people and actively intervened to take us through a downturn and a Conservative party that would do nothing.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Robathan, you cannot behave like that. You run the risk of being put out of the House.  [Interruption.] Order. Everyone has to be quiet.

Gordon Brown: There will now be a choice between a Government who have actually intervened to deal with the recession and a Conservative party that said do nothing. It will be a choice between a Government who are increasing public spending by the figures that I gave and a Conservative leader who, for the first time in the House of Commons during this Parliament, has now admitted that the policy of his party is spending cuts. That is what he has told us today; that is going to be the choice before the country.

Mr. Speaker: Eric Illsley.

Eric Illsley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you are very anxious to hear this question.
	The Prime Minister is aware that Barnsley college has been caught up in the incredible bungling of the Learning and Skills Council over the Building Colleges for the Future programme, to the extent that we have a half-demolished college. Incredibly, the LSC has, yet again, delayed the decision from 3 June on which colleges will be funded. My college is now technically insolvent and has announced 53 redundancies. When will the Prime Minister intervene to sort this mess out?

Gordon Brown: In the Budget, an extra 300 million was put into further education colleges. We are now looking at how we can help the individual colleges that have spending proposals for new investment. Let me remind the House that no investment was taking place in further education colleges when we came into power. We are now investing more in further education colleges than ever before. I believe that my hon. Friend's college in Barnsley is one of the priorities for getting that new investment.

Nicholas Clegg: Everyone who has been out on the campaign trail in the past few weeks knows how angry and frustrated people have become about the way in which this Government always raise people's hopes only for people to see them disappointed again and again. Nowhere is that truer than in housing, where we have had more announcements than new homes. Since January, when the Prime Minister announced the biggest council house building programme in decades, only 20 new homes have been started. Will he, just for once, make a promise and actually deliver?

Gordon Brown: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures. What has happened since January is that we have put in place measures, first, to protect people in their own homes, so the expected rate of mortgage repossessions has not happened and mortgage repossessions are roughly as they were a few months ago. Equally, at the same time, we are bringing in a programme to invest more in social housing over the next few months and, indeed, over the next few years. I have to tell him that we are prepared to take even more decisions to make available more social housing over the next few months. That is only possible because we have taken the decisions about the increased investment that is necessary at the time of a recession that his party and the Conservative party have opposed. I hope that if he is going to ask us for more social housing, he will support the necessary investment for it.

Nicholas Clegg: If that is all true, why are a staggering 1.8 million families in this country waiting for a home70 per cent. more than when this Government came into power? If the Prime Minister wants to do something now, why does he not stop the Treasury from grabbing all the money that councils raise in rents and sales and allow them instead to use that money to build desperately needed homes? Will he at least do that?

Gordon Brown: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are 1 million more people in homes than when we came into government in 1997. We have also improved houses for more than 1 million extra people. At the same time, we are putting aside extra money for social housing. By 2010, more than 40 billion in total will have been invested in housing since 1997, and we will have made house improvements for 8 million people. We are reducing the number of non-decent social homes by more than 1 million. Since 1997, more than 29 billion has been invested in social housing. We are not complacent, and that is why we are planning to invest more this year.

Michael Meacher: Since the stated objective of bailing out the banks was to maintain lending to businesses and home owners at 2007 levels, and since the latest official figures just published show that that lending is now absolutely flatindeed, 20 per cent. down on 2007 levelswhen will my right hon. Friend use the power that he already has from majority ownership of several major banks to force the banks to give priority to rescuing the real economy rather than simply looking after their own interests and letting the real economy go hang?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend is right that the banks have a duty now to lend to small businesses and for housing. Since 1 March they have been under an obligation, as a result of quantitative agreements that we have reached. In other words, RBS has agreed to increase its lending this year by 25 billion. Lloyds TSB has agreed to increase its lending by 14 billion and Northern Rock by 5 billion. Voluntarily, HSBC and Barclays have agreed to increase their lending. The total increase in lending that has been agreed, to come from 1 March, is 70 billion extra over what was available last year. We will begin to see the companies that will benefit from that being able to say that whereas rejections were issued before when they put in applications, they are now having their applications accepted. We will continue to monitor the situation, but I assure him that 70 billion of extra money is going into lending to small businesses and for homes.

Robert Smith: Pensioners and others who rely on their savings are suffering greatly from the low interest rates needed to tackle the recession. Will the Prime Minister explain to them why the savings limit for council tax benefit has stuck at 16,000, when, if it had gone up in line with the retail prices index, it would now be 27,000?

Gordon Brown: In all areas, we have to look at what we can afford at different times. Obviously we have done a great deal for those who are on pension credit, to raise the amount of money that they receive. We have done a great deal for people who are on working tax credit and on child tax credit, to raise the amount of money that they receive. Obviously reform of housing benefit is something that we are looking at, but I think the hon. Gentleman has to accept that 1.5 million children have come out of poverty as a result of what we have done, as have 1 million pensioners. If we had not had the pension credit, the winter allowance and the free TV licence, pensioners would not be as well off as they are. There are many people in other parties who did not support those things when we did them.

Shona McIsaac: Last week, Able UK announced a multi-million pound investment in my constituency, which is going to create 5,000 much-needed jobs. It is on the largest development site in the north of England, on a deep-water estuary. I would appreciate it if my right hon. Friend and his Ministers could tell me what further he can do to secure more economic development in my area and across the country. To that end, will he meet me and my colleagues to look at some of the barriers we still have to economic growth in my constituency, such as

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister will manage an answer to that.

Gordon Brown: Just for Opposition Members, the latest estimate shows that there would be 500,000 more people unemployed if we had followed the policies of the Conservative party.
	At all times, we will seek foreign direct investment into this country. We have given people new allowances so that they can invest now, through the recession, in our future. The only way of making a better future is to invest in the future. That is what we are doing. Unfortunately, our opponents want to cut.

Mark Lancaster: Parliament stands accused of being ever more distant from the country. Away from the political arena, what does the Prime Minister feel he has ever achieved in the real world that qualifies him to lead the nation?

Gordon Brown: I think every MP should return with a bit of humility after listening to their constituents over the past few weeks. Every MP has learned from their constituents that they want us to clean up their politics and get them through the recession, and they want us to build for the future. That is what I am going to do, and I believe I have the experience to do that.

Virendra Sharma: In the next two years, Ealing's health services will see an increase in funding of more than 55 million, thanks to the Labour Government. However, is my right hon. Friend aware of concerns in the NHS about a zero-basis review of its budget? Will he reassure me that he will not implement those Tory plans?

Gordon Brown: I can also give the House the figures for current expenditure over the next few years. Including the health service, it will rise from 565 billion to 608 billion, then to 645 billion, 666 billion, 689 billion and 712 billion. That is not a cut, that is a rise in expenditure. The only way that the cash figures will be cut is if there is a Conservative Government cutting 10 per cent. out of the major Departments. This is the day when the shadow Health Secretary admitted that the Conservatives plan 10 per cent. cuts in our vital public services. This is the day when the Conservatives revealed their true manifesto for this country. This is the day when they showed that the choice is between investment under Labour and massive cuts under the Conservative party.

Nigel Evans: In 2007, there were 8,324 deaths in which C. difficile was mentioned as a cause on the death certificatean increase of 28 per cent. on the previous year. Yesterday, the British Medical Association produced a report, which said that infection control procedures were being damaged through overcrowding and understaffing at NHS facilities. Does the Prime Minister agree that any avoidable death is unacceptable? In the light of the report, what fresh actions will the Government take to eliminate all superbugs from our hospitals?

Gordon Brown: I am determined to do that. We have introduced new rules for nurses, for people being checked as they come into hospitals and for cleanliness. We have given matrons more powers and doubled their number so that cleanliness is at the centre of everything that happens in the national health service. We are determined to root out C. difficile and to deal with MRSA. I assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone who has had personal experience of that happening to any member of their family that we will continue our work to remove C. difficile and MRSA and we have the utmost sympathy for those who have been affected.

Parmjit Dhanda: Does[Hon. Members: It is Mr. Speaker.] Steady. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anger among people who work in financial services, who have witnessed millions of pounds being rightly invested in our banks to shore them up, but now see thousands of jobs jettisoned by, for example, Cheltenham  Gloucester in the middle of a recession? Does he agree that the banks need to work with the unions to keep people in work during a recession rather than shedding jobs to pay money back to the Government?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is a great advocate for his constituents. I know that Cheltenham  Gloucester has made several redundancies, and that is a big issue not only for him but for the rest of the country. I am happy to meet him to discuss those issues, but let me say that we are determined to keep as many jobs as possible in this country and to prevent unemployment where possible, and, when it happens, to give people new jobs. A hundred and fifty thousand new jobs have been created as a result of new investment that we are making in the flexible new deal to enable young people and others to get jobs. Even in the current difficult situation, more than 200,000 people are finding new jobs every month. We will continue to provide that support, but I have to say again that the issue is clear: we are prepared to provide the investment that is necessary; the Conservatives are revealed again as the party of cuts.

Mark Harper: Last month before the local elections, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) about his regional development agency, said that Conservative Members wanted to abolish regional development agencies. We dowe want to give the powers and the budgets to local authorities. He said:
	We will support it, we will invest; they would make cuts. [Official Report, 6 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 165.]
	This week, after those elections, the South West of England Regional Development Agency has made 56 million of cuts, cutting projects in my constituency in Newent and Cinderford and halving the budget for regeneration in Gloucester. Why should anybody believe a word the Prime Minister says again?

Gordon Brown: Thousands of companies in the hon. Gentleman's area are getting help under the Inland Revenue scheme and others that we are introducing. Thousands of companies are getting special help to take them through the recession. If his argument is that we must avoid cuts, he had better talk to the shadow Chancellor because he proposes massive cuts in services today and in future. The Conservative party has been revealed today as the party that will fight for the next few months on cuts in services. At some point, Conservative Members will have to tell us how many nurses, doctors, teachers, carers and public servants will lose their jobs as a result of the new policy announced this morning.

David Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Lawrence Daly, the general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers from 1968 to 1984? He was the man who led the Wilberforce inquiry on behalf of the union and changed conditions in the mining industry more than any other individual. He was also a man who loved to sing and loved poetry. The NUM in Scotlandthe Prime Minister is an honorary member of the Scottish miners unionis looking to pay a tribute to Lawrence Daly in his homeland of Fife. Would the Prime Minister consider coming to Fife and also paying tribute to him?

Gordon Brown: I would indeed. Lawrence Daly was a friend of mine, as well as of many people. There are few people who did more to advance miners' conditions in this country than Lawrence Daly. He fought for miners' safety in a way that brought about big changes in safety in the mining industry. He fought for miners to get the right to compensation for pneumoconiosis and other diseases. I believe that he and so many other miners' leaders who fought for good conditions in what is a very dangerous industry deserve the wholesale gratitude of everybody, in all parts of the House.

Constitutional Renewal

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's proposal to invite the House to agree further democratic reform, including legislation before the House rises for the summer on the conduct of Members of Parliament.
	The past few months have shown us that the public require, as an urgent imperative, higher standards of financial conduct from all people in public life and an end to any abuses of the past. There is no more pressing task for this Parliament than to respond immediately to this public demand. Like every Member here, I believe that most Members of Parliament enter public life so that they can serve the public interest. I believe also that the vast majority of MPs work hard for their constituents and demonstrate by their service, whatever party they belong to, that they are in politics not for what they can get but for what they can give.
	But all of us have to have the humility to accept that public confidence has been shaken and that the battered reputation of this institution cannot be repaired without fundamental change. At precisely the moment when the public need their politicians to be focused on the issues that affect their liveson fighting back against recession and keeping people in their jobs and homesthe subject of politics itself has become the focus of our politics. We cannot move our country forward unless we break with the old practices and the old ways. Each of us has a part to play in the hard task of regaining the country's trust, not for the sake of our different parties but for the sake of our common democracy. Without that trust, there can be no legitimacy; and without legitimacy, none of us can do the job our constituents have sent us here to do.
	We must reflect on what has happened, redress the abuses, ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again and ensure that the public see us as individual MPs accountable to our constituents. It will be what we now do, not just what we say, that will prove that we have learned and that we have changed. So first, all MPs' past and future expenses should and will be published on the internet in the next few days. Home claims submitted by MPs from all parts of the House over the past four years must, as we have agreed, be scrutinised by an independently led panel. That will ensure repayment where it is necessary and lead to discipline where there have been inappropriate claims. I know that you are working urgently to conclude this reassessment process, Mr. Speaker. We must now publish the past four years' receipts, and start and conclude the scrutiny process as quickly as possible.
	The House has already agreed to restrict expenses further, to those needed for parliamentary duties alone, to cut the costs for housing, to require all spending to be receipted and to ensure that incomes from second jobs are fully accounted for. All parties have committed themselves to accept the further recommendations of the independent Kelly committee, once they are received later this year, provided these proposals meet the tests of increased transparency, accountability and reduced costs for the taxpayer. Those steps to sort out the expenses crisis are necessary, but I think we all know that they are not sufficient. We need to go further.
	At its first meeting yesterday, the Government's democratic council decided to bring forward new legislative proposals before the summer Adjournment on two issues that have been the subject of constructive cross-party discussion. First, we propose that the House of Commonsand subsequently the House of Lordsmove from the old system of self-regulation to independent, statutory regulation. That will mean the immediate creation of a new Parliamentary Standards Authority, which will have delegated power to regulate the system of allowances. No more can Westminster operate in ways reminiscent of the last century, whereby Members make up the rules and operate them among themselves.
	The proposed new authority would take over the role of the Fees Office in authorising Members' claims, oversee the new allowance system, following proposals from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, maintain the Register of Members' Interests, and disallow claims, require repayment and apply firm and appropriate sanctions in cases of financial irregularity. I welcome the cross-party support for these proposals, which will be contained in the Bill that we will introduce very soon. I believe that the whole House will also wish to agree that, as part of this process, the new regulator should scrutinise efficiency and value for money in Parliament's expenditure, and ensure, as suggested to Sir Christopher Kelly, that Parliament costs less.
	Secondly, the House will be asked to agree a statutory code of conduct for all MPs, clarifying their role in relation to their constituents and Parliament, detailing what the electorate can expect and the consequences that will follow for those who fail to deliver. It will codify much more clearly the different potential offences that must be addressed, and the options available to sanction. These measures will be included in a short, self-standing Bill on the conduct of Members in the Commons, which will be introduced and debated before the summer Adjournment. This will address the most immediate issues about which we know the public are most upset, but it will be only the first stage of our legislation on the constitution.
	The current system of sanctions for misconduct by Members is not fit for purpose. It does not give the public the confidence they need that wrongdoing will be dealt with in an appropriate way. The last time a person was expelled from the House was 55 years ago, in 1954. It remains the case that Members can be sentenced to up to one year in prison without being required to give up their parliamentary seat. The sanctions available against financial misconduct or corruption have not been updated to meet the needs of the times. This is not a modern and accountable system that puts the interests of constituents first. It needs to change.
	There will be consultation with all sides of the House to come forward with new proposals for dealing effectively with inappropriate behaviour, including the potential options of effective exclusion and recall for gross financial misconduct, identified by the new independent regulator and by the House itself.
	The House of Lords needs to be reformed, too. Following a meeting of the House Committee of the House of Lords, and at its request, I have today written to the Senior Salaries Review Body to ask it to review the system of financial support in the House of Lords, to increase its accountability, to enhance its transparency and to reduce its cost. For the first time, there will also be new legislation for new disciplinary sanctions for the misconduct of peers in the House of Lords.
	We must also take forward urgent modernisation of the procedures of the House of Commons, so I am happy to give the Government's support to a proposal from my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee that we will work with a special parliamentary commission comprising Members from both sides of this House, convened for a defined period to advise on necessary reforms, including making Select Committee processes more democratic, scheduling more and better time for non-Government business in the House, and enabling the public to initiate directly some issues for debate.
	Given the vital role that transparency plays in sweeping away the decrepit system of allowances and holding power to account, I believe that we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information. So, as a next step, the Justice Secretary will set out further plans to look at broadening the application of freedom of information to include additional bodies which also need to be subject to greater transparency and accountability. This is the public's money, and they should know how it is spent.
	I should also announce that, as part of extending the availability of official information, and as our response to the Dacre review, we will progressively reduce the time taken to release official documents. As the report recommended, we have considered the need to strengthen protection for particularly sensitive material, and there will be protection of royal family and Cabinet papers as part of strictly limited exemptions. But we will reduce the time for release of all other official documents below the current 30 years, to 20 years. So that Government information is accessible and useful for the widest possible group of people, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who led the creation of the worldwide web, has agreed to help us to drive the opening up of access to Government data on the web over the coming months.
	In the last 12 years, we have created the devolved Administrations, ended the hereditary principle in the House of Lords, and introduced the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Just as, through recent changes, we are removing ancient royal prerogatives and making the Executive more accountable to Parliament on central issues such as the declaration of peace and war, appointments and treaties, so, too, we want to establish and renew the legitimacy of Parliament itself by its becoming more accountable to the people.
	Democratic reform cannot be led in Westminster alone. It must be led by engagement with the public. That is part of the lesson of the last month: the public want to be, and should be, part of the solution. So we must build a process that engages citizens themselves, people of all parties and none, of all faiths and no faith, from every background and every part of the country. So over the coming months, the Government will set out proposals for debate and reform on five remaining major constitutional issues.
	First, we will move forward with reform of the House of Lords. The Government's White Paper, published last July, for which there is backing from other parties, committed us to an 80 or 100 per cent. elected House of Lords, so we must now take the next steps as we complete this reform. The Government will come forward with published proposals for the final stage of House of Lords reform before the summer Adjournment, including the next steps we can take to resolve the position of the remaining hereditary peers and other outstanding issues.
	Secondly, setting out the rights that people can expect as a British citizen, but also the responsibilities that come with those rights, is a fundamental step in balancing power between Government, Parliament and the people. It is for many people extraordinary that Britain still has a largely unwritten constitution. I personally favour a written constitution. I recognise that this change would represent a historic shift in our constitutional arrangements, so any such proposals will be subject to wide public debate and the drafting of such a constitution should ultimately be a matter for the widest possible consultation with the British people themselves.
	Thirdly, there is the devolution of power and the engagement of people themselves in their local communities. The House will be aware of the proposals for the completion of the devolution of policing and justice in Northern Ireland. Next week, the Calman commission will report with recommendations on the future of devolution in Scotland within the United Kingdom. The Government of Wales Act 2006 permits further devolution in Wales, on which discussions are taking place. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will set out how we will strengthen the engagement of citizens in the democratic life of their own communities as we progress the next stage of devolution in England. So we must consider whether we should offer stronger, clearly defined powers to local government and city regions and strengthen their accountability to local people.
	Last year, we published our review of the electoral system and there is a long-standing debate on this issue. I still believe that the link between the MP and constituency is essential and that the constituency is best able to hold its MP to account. We should be prepared to propose change only if there is a broad consensus in the country that it would strengthen our democracy and our politics by improving the effectiveness and legitimacy of both Government and Parliament and by enhancing the level and quality of representation and public engagement. We will set out proposals for taking this debate forward.
	Fifthly, we will set out proposals for increasing public engagement in politics. To improve electoral registration, we will consider how we increase the number of people on the register and help to combat fraud. On receipt of the youth commission report, and having heard from young people themselves, we will set out the steps we will take to increase the engagement of young people in politics, including whether to give further consideration to the voting age.
	As we come forward with proposals, in each case the Government will look to consult widely. All proposed reforms will be underpinned by cross-party discussions. Our proposals will also be informed by leading external figures, including academics and others who command public respect and have a recognised interest or expertise in the different elements of democratic reform. I expect this to conclude in time to shape the Government's forward legislative programme and to feed into the Queen's Speech. [Interruption.]
	In the midst of all the recriminations, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard [Interruption.] I do not think the House is behaving well today when it is debating its own future and how the public see what we do. In the midst of all the rancour and recriminations about expenses, let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard. In the midst of doubt, let us revive confidence. Let us also stand together because on this, at least, I think we all agreeBritain deserves a political system that is equal to the hopes and character of our people. Let us differ on policythat is inevitablebut let us stand together for integrity and democracy. That is now more essential than ever, so I commend this statement to the House.

David Cameron: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but I have to say that he read it so quickly that I am not sure he convinced even himself. He has spoken a lot about constitutional change and innovation, but is not the real change we need not much of an innovation at all? Is not the answer to our discredited politics, to our disillusioned country and to our desperately weak Government a general election?
	Two years ago, the Prime Minister did not call an election because he thought he would not win it; three weeks ago, he said he did not want one because it would bring chaos; and Lord Mandelson, the man who now runs the Government, says that Labour is against one because it might lose it. How many more excuses will they come up with before they recognise that it is time for people to have their say?
	Let me turn now to the proposals themselves. The country is too centralised, Parliament is too weak, and the Government are too top-down, too secretive and too unwilling to give up power. Above all, is not the real problem the fact that people feel shut out of decision making and unable to control the things that matter to them?
	There is much in the statement that we support, not least because it is taken from the comprehensive case for reform that I made to the Open university. The Government have at least mastered the art of copying things. We agree with giving more power to local government, but let us not stop there. Why not abolish the regional quangos that have taken so much power away from local government? We support greater independence for Select Committees, which got a mention today, but why cannot the Prime Minister say today that these watchdogs should be freely elected and not appointed by the Whips Office? I accept that it is a difficult decision for the Prime Minister, and in a way it is a difficult decision for me, because it means giving up patronage. However, I am prepared to do it. Is he prepared to do it?
	We will back the establishment of a Parliamentary Standards Authority to supervise all matters relating to Members of Parliament' pay and expenses, but there are still serious questions to be answered, not least about how it will relate to the House and to whom it will be ultimately accountable.
	The problem is that the Prime Minister has promised constitutional change countless times before. He promised it when he launched his campaign for leadership of the Labour party two years ago, he promised it in his first statement to the House as Prime Minister, and he promised it in his speech on liberty in the autumn of 2007. He promised it in two Queen's Speeches, when he specifically pledged the delivery of a Constitutional Renewal Bill. That Bill was first mooted in November 2007, then again in December 2008. Why has it taken so long?
	Let us consider the things that the Prime Minister has proposed in the past. He has proposed a British day, an institute of Britishness, a Bill of Rights, a written constitution and reform of the House of Lords. They are all endlessly launched and relaunched, but nothing ever happens. It is not so much a Government strategy as a relaunch distraction strategy, intended to give the Prime Minister something to talk about when he is in desperate straits.
	The Prime Minister's latest brainchildyou could not make this one upis a National Council for Democratic Renewal. That sounds like something out of North Korea, but let us be clear about what it is. It is not some outward-looking convention that is open to the public. It is not even cross-party. It is just a bunch of Ministers talking to themselves.
	What these proposals fail to address is the central question that we believe should lie behind any programme for constitutional reform: how do we take power away from the political elite, and give it to the man and woman in the street? Let me give the Prime Minister some real ideas. It is not time to allow people the opportunity to present a proposition and have it voted on in a local referendum? Should we not introduce so-called citizens' initiatives? Is it not time to give local people the right to stop excessive taxation? Should we not give them the right to hold a referendum on massive council tax rises?
	When we, as democratically elected politicians, promise a referendum, as we all did on the European constitution, should we not stick to our promise? Is it not things of that kind that really sap people's faith in politics? At the heart of any programme of constitutional reform should be proper taxpayer transparency. Is it not time to publish all public spending, national and local, online, so that each taxpayer can see precisely how his or her hard-earned money is being spent?
	If the test of effective constitutional reform is pushing power downwards, is it not the case that nothing fails more than proportional representation? Let me reaffirm our belief that it is a recipe for weak coalition Governments. Rather than voters choosing their Governments on the basis of manifestos, does it not all too often mean party managers choosing Governments on the basis of backroom deals? Our view is clear: we should not take away from the British people the right to get rid of weak, tired and discredited Governments. The most powerful thing in politics is not actually the soapbox or the Dispatch Box but the ballot box, particularly when it leads to the removal van. I have to ask the Prime Minister this: will not people conclude that he has started talking about proportional representation only because he fears he will lose under the existing rules?
	If we want an electoral system that is fairer, should we not consider ensuring that each constituency is of equal worth? At present some constituencies have twice as many voters as others, which puts a premium on some votes. Is it not time to ask the Boundary Commission to redraw boundaries to make them all the same size? At the same time, should we not be reducing the size of the House of Commons?
	Is it not the case that it is not the alternative vote that people want now, but the chance to vote for an alternative Government? Are these proposals not a pretty sorry attempt to distract attention away from a Prime Minister who has lost his authority, a Cabinet full of second preferences, and a Labour Government who have led this country to the brink of bankruptcy?

Gordon Brown: All MPs sitting in this Chamber must know what their constituents are telling them, but I do not think the Leader of the Opposition's statement reflects what they are saying to him. Nearly 70 per cent. of people did not vote in the elections of last week, and 40 per cent. voted for parties other than those represented here, and we have to accept that people want us first to clean up our politics quickly. I would have thought he would make more mention of that in his response to the statement.
	We want all-party support for the new code of conduct and the parliamentary standards commissioner, and also for the way we deal with issues of exclusion from the House of Commons, which is something that has not been faced up to before. The precondition of any debate about the future of our democracy must be our determination to recognise, with humility, that this House has got to clean up its affairs as a matter of urgency, and every Member of Parliament shares a responsibility for doing that. Before we get into the different issues that divide our party [Interruption.] Before we get into the different issues that divide the parties, I think the Conservative party [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be allowed to answer properly.  [Interruption.] Order; this is very unfair indeed.

Gordon Brown: It is our responsibility to recognise that the problems of expenses are in every party in the House of Commons, and we must all accept the responsibility for sorting them out.
	The Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong about the Constitutional Renewal Bill. It has been discussed by Committees of both Houses, and it was published in draft form some time ago. We have been debating it so we can get it absolutely right. It will come before the House of Commons for its Second Reading very soon, but before that we have to deal with the expenses crisis. The Constitutional Reform Bill removes the royal prerogative in key areas: the ability to declare peace and war is no longer a matter just for the Prime Minister or the Executive; it is a matter for the House of Commons, as are the declaration of treaties, the selection of people and pre-appointment hearings. There are a range of areas where the Executive have surrendered power to the House of Commons, and will continue to do so.
	The time is also right for Parliament to make its affairs more accountable to the public. I think I am the first Prime Minister to propose a review to ensure that Select Committees can work in a new way, and I hope everybody will take up the opportunity to discuss that. I am also proposing that we look at means by which the public petitions that now come to No. 10 could come to Parliament in such a way that they could be debated.
	As for the devolution of power, let us be clear that we devolved power to Scotland and Wales against the views of the Conservative party, and we also put forward constitutional proposals, including on freedom of information, which are now being seen to be changing our political system as a result of transparency. We want to expand that. The Sir Tim Berners-Lee proposal is to open up information more widely, and if we do that the Leader of the Opposition's proposal about information about money can be put on the internet. There are, therefore, a range of proposals.
	On electoral reform, I think it is fair to say that before the Leader of the Opposition asked me questions at Prime Minister's Question Time, he had sight of the statement that I was to make to the House of Commons

David Cameron: For five minutes.

Gordon Brown: He had sight of the statement I was to make to the House of Commons, and it was therefore clear to him what I was proposing and what I was not proposing, and it is clear from what I have said that the debate is to be one in which we take into account the relationship between the constituency and the Member of Parliament; that is something we want to do. We are not going to turn our back on any discussion of reform; I suspect that only the Conservative partynot the Liberal party, nor other partieswant to do that now.
	The Leader of the Opposition must also wake up to the fact that many systems of representation are already used in the United Kingdom. He did not reply to our proposals on the House of Lords. I take it that he still favours 80 or 100 per cent. elected representation in the Lords, and that he favours the proposals we are going to put forward to reform the House of Lords. The House of Lords has also got to face up to its responsibilities in that its discipline procedures and procedures for dealing with its finances are not good enough, and that is very much part of the measures we are putting forward.
	These proposals are an essential element of restoring trust in politics and I hope they will gain all-party support.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Of course everyone agrees that the political crisis requires big changes in the way we do things, so I welcome this deathbed conversion to political reform from the man who has blocked change at almost every opportunity for the last 12 years. Everyone knows that the Labour party will lose the next general election, so any reforms must be in place before the election if they are to mean anything at all. Anything else would be a betrayal of the British people, who are angry and demanding that we change for good the rotten way we do politics. Does the Prime Minister not see that this is no time for more committees, more reviews and more consultation? We have been debating these issues for decades; is it not now time to get things done?
	I strongly welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to moving towards an elected House of Lords, but will he give us a date by which this reform will be complete? We have already voted on it in this place; there should be no more delay. I also strongly welcome the move towards a Parliamentary Standards Authority and an MPs' code of conduct. These changes should be implemented immediately with no more delay, so will the Prime Minister ask this House to forgo its summer recess so that we can push through all the necessary changes to clean up politics, and will he make sure that his immediate proposals include the right for people to sack their MP if it has been shown that they have done something seriously wrong?
	I am dismayed that the Prime Minister is completely silent on the issue of party funding. How on earth can he possibly justify that? We cannot allow our politics to go the way of America's, where elections have become a contest of advertising budgets, not ideas. Why delay when he could just implement the Hayden Phillips recommendations in the party funding Bill that is already being debated in another place? The way forward has been agreed; why does he refuse to act?
	On electoral reform, I welcome any movement away from our discredited system: a system that gives the Prime Minister's Government untrammelled power when only one in five people voted for them; a system that gives MPs safe seats for life.  [Interruption.] That's why they like it. As Robin Cook recognised, and as the Prime Minister's new Home Secretary realises [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. You must be quiet Mr. Kawczynski; that is something you have got to do.  [Interruption.] I know it is difficult for you, but try to be quiet.

Nicholas Clegg: As Robin Cook recognised, and as the Prime Minister's new Home Secretary realises, this cannot go on. So why is the Prime Minister seeking to restart a general debate on electoral reform? We have had the debate: we had Roy Jenkins's report and the independent Power inquiry. We cannot afford to wait for a cross-party consensus because the Conservatives will never want to change this cosy Westminster stitch-up. We do not need to wait for the Cabinet to make up its mind; it is not up to it to decide how our democracy works. People should now be given a say, so will the Prime Minister now call a referendum this autumn to give people a choicea choice between the bankrupt system we have now and serious proposals for reform which finally put the people in charge, not politicians? The Prime Minister has nothing to lose. This is no time for his trademark timidity. Just get on with it. Will he now cancel the recess, pass the legislation we need, and give people the say we deserve?

Gordon Brown: First, let me say where we agree. We agreeI am glad the right hon. Gentleman has said this explicitlythat we will all support the new Parliamentary Standards Authority; we will move from self-regulation to statutory regulation. We can therefore do that very quickly; it can be enacted very quickly to start almost immediately. We will all agree to the code of conduct, which means that the conditions under which MPs may be excluded from the House of Commons will be set down for them. We will modernise the means by which we deal with those issues where exclusion or recall is a possibility; I think there should be a debate on that over the next few weeks. We have got to make sure first of all that the country sees us dealing with the changes that are necessary, and I think that the mood of the House today still does not sufficiently recognise the gravity of the problems we face with our constituents and that we have got to deal with as a matter of immediacy.
	As for the summer adjournment, I hope we can make progress, but I must ask the leader of the Liberal Democrats not to perpetuate the myth that for 12 or 14 weeks during the summer and autumn MPs do absolutely nothing. MPs are in their constituencies, and working there, and let us not perpetuate a myth that is not the correct story. Most MPs I know are working very hard indeed in their constituencies. That deserves to be said so that people understand that that is the case.
	On the other issues, we agree about the reforms within Parliament, and there will be a chance for a group of people to look at those under the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee. On House of Lords reform, we agree about what needs to be done. The reason that reform of the Lords has been blocked is not the House of Commons, but the House of Lords itself.
	As far as party funding is concerned, we have been looking, on an all-party basis, at how we can improve and reform party funding, and it is very much on the agenda. On electoral reform, I gave my statement to the leaders of the other parties before questions, and it made my position clear. I am sorry that some people misinterpreted that position during Prime Minister's questions, but my position is the clear position that I put to the House when I read out my statement. Other Members did not have a copy, but the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal Democrats had it before questions.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend has made an important announcement today that may even turn out to be historic. Will he consider adding one item to the list? It is an item on which I was elected in our manifesto in 1992, and I introduced a Bill on it eight years ago. It is an item that most people in the House now seem to have signed up to, and it is the proposition that we should have fixed-term Parliaments. May I ask him to signal his commitment to fixed-term Parliaments by announcing now the date of the next general election? May I suggest that 6 May 2010 would be an excellent date?

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend, whom we are asking to undertake new responsibilities in this review, has strong views on these issues, including fixed-term Parliaments, which would be part of the discussions on a written constitution. He will understand why I am making no specific announcements today, and I do not propose to do so. It is more important to get on with the work that we have set out, both in cleaning up the politics of this country and in making the reforms that he, to his credit, has been proposing for years in this House.

George Young: There is much in what the Prime Minister has said that I welcome, but his suggestions for a statutory code of conduct for Members of Parliament, enforceable in the courts, have enormous implications for all of us, our relationship with and accountability to our constituents, as well as the role of the House as the supreme court of Parliament. May I ask that this particular section of his proposals is not rushed through the House?

Gordon Brown: As the distinguished Chairman of the Committee that deals with the conduct of MPs, the right hon. Gentleman will be consulted on this issue, but there are many other legislatures that have a statutory code of conduct. Once in a generation a crisis builds upit has happened in Australia, Canada, the United States and Germanyand people who should probably have taken action earlier to deal with it had to take action to reassure the public that everything possible was being done. A code of conduct is a necessary means by which the public will know that the behaviour of MPs will be regulated. That can be set down in many ways, but we cannot evade our responsibility to do it. We can discuss how it can be done and, at the same time, we will have to modernise how we deal with issues of suspension and exclusion from this House. As I understand it, only three people have been excluded from this House in a century and, given all the scandals in that time, that might sound strange to people. A person can be imprisoned for a year or in detention for six months, but still not be expelled from the House of Commons. We have to consider how our 19th( )century procedures line up with the common sense of the public in the 21st century. We will have discussions about this, but a statutory code of conduct is something that most of the country now wants to see.

Stuart Bell: It is appropriate for the Prime Minister to remind the House that during June we will publish the redacted receipts for expenses for the past four years, and we will also have the Kelly committee's recommendations. It is also appropriateand I speak as a member of the House of Commons Commissionthat the House authorities work with my right hon. Friend and the Government on procedural reforms. Is it also not appropriate that, by the end of the present Session of Parliament, we will have a new statutory code of conduct so that we can all go back to our constituents and tell them, We have understood you.?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on the Commission. He does a very good job and he should be applauded for the time that he gives to discharging his responsibilities. He is right: there is no way that the public will accept that this House has dealt with the problems that have been revealed unless we can pass that legislation as quickly as possible, and unless the review of the expenses of the last four years is confirmed by an independent auditor who has assessed the regularity of Members' expenses. We should have the humility to recognise that that has to be done as a matter of urgency. The sooner that the audit can be doneand the publication of the full expenses can be made, as ordered by the courtsthe better.

Alan Beith: Does the Prime Minister accept that it is not the Government's job to decide how the House of Commons should use its time in examining Government legislation? Will his reforms allow a body in which Back Benchers play a stronger role to be at the centre of the House's decision-making on its timetable?

Gordon Brown: That is exactly what the group convened by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee will want to look at. The Government need to be able to get their business through, but there is also non-government time, and that can be discussed in more detail by a group of people who are experienced and have views on this issue. It will make recommendations to see what can be done. That is one way in which we can make progress on the government of this House.

Keith Vaz: Since my right hon. Friend became Prime Minister, he has spoken of a new settlement with the British people. I welcome his commitment to a written constitution. He will accept that this process will take a long time, but there is no excuse for not starting it. Does he agree that it is essential that as we write this new constitution, it is not just law-makers, parliamentarians and the good and the great, but members of the public, who are directly involved in writing what will be the most important document in our constitution?

Gordon Brown: We have at the moment a consultation on a Bill of rights and responsibilities. My right hon. Friend is rightas I said in my statement, any written constitution would have to involve the widest possible consultation with the people. Let us be clear where our constitution is at the moment. It is not unwritten, in the sense that there are no written documents and no pieces of legislation. We have devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which in a sense creates a written constitution for those parts of the United Kingdom. There is the European Union legislation, which in a sense creates the conditions in which we operate as members of the EU. The Human Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act and other Acts guarantee equality, including the Equality Bill before us at the moment. There is no shortage of legislation that defines some of our rights and some of the responsibilities of institutions. It is a fact that we have not brought those elements together coherently and cohesively, nor have we set down a statement of objectives and aims as other constitutions do, and that is the subject for our debate. We should recognise that the circumstances in which the debate about a written constitution should take place are completely different from where we were 20 years ago, when there was no devolution, when we did not have the same relationship with Europe and when we did not have human rights or freedom of information legislation. Things have changed fundamentally in the last 20 years.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister has said many things in his statement that are entirely acceptable to my party and its sister party, and to others. He referred in passing to the imbalance between the power of the Executive and of Parliament. That is very detrimental to this Parliament. May I suggest that the daily abuse of guillotines is a farce? Bills come back on Report and 80, or even 100, amendments are passed on the nod without discussion. That is undemocratic and wrong, and it has to stop.

Gordon Brown: We have always got to get the balance right between a manifesto commitment that has been made by a party that is in government and the legislation that is necessary to get it through. If we are truly accountable to the people, a manifesto commitment that involves legislation is something that we have a responsibility to enact. Of course, time permitting, there must be the maximum [ Interruption. ] Someone says it is a feeble excuse when I say that people should implement their manifestos. I think that we will remember that when Opposition Members talk about manifestos in the future. The governing party makes a commitment to implementing its manifesto and, at the same time, there is the commitment that we want to give for the maximum possible consultation, but that depends on the time available in the House of Commons.

Gordon Prentice: Why on earth do we allow tax exiles to bankroll political parties? My friend talked a lot of sense about the Constitutional Renewal Bill, but on Monday the Lords will be discussing the Political Parties and Elections Bill on Report. Will he take that opportunity on Monday to close the Ashcroft loophole?

Gordon Brown: There are questions that have to be answered by Members of this House but also by Members of the other House.

Malcolm Rifkind: May I, in the kindest possible way, suggest that today's statement is a rag-bag of ill-considered proposals brought forward in the last 11 months of this Parliament by an exhausted Prime Minister. That is no more apparent than in regard to his proposals for a written constitution. He knows that although much of our existing law is written, one thing that has made our democracy evolve in such a vibrant and straightforward fashion has been the conventions that have enabled change to be made without the rigidities associated with a written constitution. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that it would be premature for his Government to commit themselves to a written constitution until some proper deliberation has taken placenot just on what a written constitution might say, but on whether it is desirable in the first place?

Gordon Brown: The problems of this House of Commons and the workings of our political system being ad hoc and evolutionary have been revealed in the expenses scandal in the House of Commons. It is absolutely clear that a gentlemen's club, operating with its own rules and its own powers of discipline, has proven unsatisfactory and inadequate to meet the needs of the times. I believe that there are other areas in our constitution whereby our inability to be straight about what we are trying to do and to put that down in legislation means that we sometimes fail the public. I said that there is a debate to be had about a written constitution, and I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took my words carefully. There is a debate to be had on it. It is a major decision for our country, and he is clearly against it. Given that so much of our constitution is now written for the different parts of the United Kingdom, for different areas of policy and for the relationship between individuals and the state, it is worth considering putting that into one written constitution.

Robert Wareing: Does the Prime Minister agree that the authority and power of Parliament have been diminishing for decades under successive Governments and that in factprogramme motions have been mentioned in this contextwe have reached a situation where, far from the Government being accountable to the House of Commons, the House of Commons is now accountable to the Government? The programme is determined outside the legislature, and, if we are to look at the renewal of the constitution, perhaps we should be even more sweeping. Perhaps we should even considerI did not believe in this at one timea separation of powers between Parliament and the Executive.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is proposing the American constitution for Britain. He knows the deadlock that often happens with the American constitution when Congress, the Senate and the President cannot agree on what needs to be done. If he looks back to what has happened over the past few months, he will see that we were able to persuade Parliament to put our banking reforms through and were able to finance our banks so that we could rescue them, whereas it took the Americans weeks and months to get those provisions through their legislature as a result of the issues that arise from the separation of powers. However, that is a debate for the future.
	On the subject of the future of Parliament's role in dealing with legislation and issues, I remember the debate that John P. Mackintosh, who was a Member of this House in the 1960s, started about the role of Select Committees and how they could play a big role in the management of this House. There are two reasons that Select Committees have not had the effect that I know that my hon. Friend would want them to have. First, the reforms that we are talking about, which could have been made, have not been made. Secondly, Members have not seen them as important enough in themselves for them to put forward proposals to the House following the reports of Select Committees that would then lead to legislation. We need to have this discussion in the talks led by the Member who has great expertise in this matter to see what can be done. I am open to these discussions, as most Members are, but we must recognise the background. We have been trying to reform the Select Committee system and to make it more relevant for 40 years.

Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to reforming the Select Committee system, but would it not make sense to give Select Committees real powers, such as, for example, providing that whenever a new Secretary of State is appointed to the Cabinet he or she must be subject to confirmation by the appropriate departmental Select Committee? Would that not be particularly appropriate when the Prime Minister is appointing Secretaries of State from the House of Lords and when he is considering the major constitutional step of appointing a new First Secretary of State?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a point about pre-confirmation hearings, and I think that I am right in saying that as a result of the announcements that we made two years ago, 62 positions are now subject to Select Committee hearings, which work very well. As far as Ministers are concerned, Ministers are responsible to this House. At the moment, if people want to bring forward motions on the suitability or unsuitability of Ministers, they can do so. Obviously, these matters can be discussed by the committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) is looking at.

Geraldine Smith: One democratic reform that I feel that the British public would like to see is a referendum on the principle of whether we remain in the European Union. No one under the age of 50 has had a chance to vote on the question of Europe and I think that, as a matter of course, we should have a referendum once every 15 to 20 years.

Gordon Brown: This issue was not put to the people by the Conservative Government who put us into the European Union. It was not put to the people when we went into the European Common Market, but it was put by a Labour Government in 1975. The conclusion was pretty cleartwo thirds of the people wanted to be part of the Union. I do not think that that opinion has fundamentally changed.

Iain Duncan Smith: Many in the House, on both sides, agree that it is now time for radical change to the way in which this place does its business. In the discussions that I have had, many Back Benchers have agreed that one of the biggest problems is that the Executive have become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Is not the point today that the Prime Minister has come forward with a statement in which the Executive tell the rest of us what we shall now reform? Should not the rest of us be telling the Executive what they should or should not do?

Gordon Brown: First, I am talking about powers that the Executive are surrendering to Parliament or powers that Parliament should have. I put forward proposals two years ago for a whole range of areas, such as pre-confirmation hearings, where the Executive should surrender some of their powers to Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to perpetuate the myth that somehow the problems of the past few weeks are not the problems of Parliament and are not problems that people consider to have been caused by mistakes made by Members of Parliament and this House, I do not think that he will get an echo in the country for what he is saying.
	This House has to face up to the fact that it let the country down. We have to make the changes that are necessary. Many MPs who work hard, who do their duty and who have made no mistakes are being penalised because of the mistakes made by others, but we have a collective duty to clean up this House in the interests of democracy and everybody who saw last week the votes that were given to parties that are not represented in this House knows what our duty is. To say that the problem is not Parliament and that Parliament does not have to deal with its problems is, in my view, a mistake and a misreading of the situation. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman, who usually brings his wisdom on these matters to the House, will reconsider his view.

Michael Meacher: Although I warmly applaud the broad thrust of these proposals, does my right hon. Friend accept that the House's power to hold the Executive effectively to account is an essential part of any parliamentary democratic reform? If so, does he accept that this House should have the right to elect its own business committee and to share control of the agenda with Government, the right to elect both Chairs and members of Select Committees by secret ballot and the right to set up, where appropriate, its own parliamentary commissions of inquiry?

Gordon Brown: I know that my right hon. Friend, with whom I have talked about these matters, has taken a huge interest in this issue. He has been very vigorous in pursuing the case for reform over many years. I think that I have read work that he did 30 years ago, as well as 20 years and 10 years ago, so he is absolutely right to raise these questions. These are the very issues that can be examined by the group that is being set up. The role of Select Committees, the election of their membership, the business management of the House, how non-Government business should be dealt with, the role of public petitions and what we do about themthese are all issues that I feel that the public have the right to know that Parliament is investigating, as they all affect our accountability to the general public.

William Cash: Does the Prime Minister recall that he was recently in Normandy? People fought and died in the last war because they wanted to maintain a free democratic system in this country, based on a direct link between Member of Parliament, Government and constituents. They died for a democratic vote. Does he also accept that they did not die for judicial supremacy over and above the parliamentary supremacy that they fought for, regardless of whether decisions are made in our courts or in European courts?

Gordon Brown: I was able and had the honour to pay tribute to those who died during the D-day landings and their aftermath, as we moved from France to the fall of Berlin, the end of the Third Reich and the freedom of Europe. Those men and women who died in the service of their country deserve the gratitude of everyone in this House, and they will never be forgotten. I wanted to represent the British people, as did the Prince of Wales, and say that the result of the sacrifices that were made is that a Europe that was once divided is today free of conflict. People who once thought that wars would happen between their countries now know that there is peace and unity in Europe. I agree also that people fought for freedom, and freedom means that we have a British constitution that we can be proud of.

Chris Mullin: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that, if we wish to enhance the standing of Parliament in the eyes of our constituents, there is one simple measure that we can take immediately and that requires no legislationthat is, to resume sittings in September? That is something that we voted for several years ago, but then reneged on. How can it be right in a democracy for Parliament to give the Executive an 80-day holiday from scrutiny? How can we expect to be taken seriously in the 21st century when we are still awarding ourselves Gladstonian-length recesses?

Gordon Brown: The tabling and answering of questions is of course possible in September, but I remind my hon. Friend that it was the House that voted not to have the September sitting, not the Government.

Evan Harris: The Prime Minister will know that I have asked him on two occasionsand the Leader of the House on nineabout what he can do to end the scandal and embarrassment caused by having huge chunks of Government legislation and Government amendments going through the House at Report stage without adequate scrutiny. Of course the Government must get their business through, if the House supports it, but does he accept that, if the scandal that I have described is not ended, the process that he has set out will have been a failure? This House must make sure that everything that it needs to debate and divide on is reached at Report stage. Unless that happens, we will not be able to take seriously what I hope is his serious commitment to moving from being a reform conservative to being a reform radical.

Gordon Brown: The House, of course, has developed pre-legislative scrutiny that allows some of the problems that have arisen in the past to be dealt with. However, the specific issue of amendments tabled during the course of a Bill is something that can be looked at in the review.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that the public will welcome very much the measures being taken to speed up the process of sorting out the terrible expenses scandal, but is there not something missing from the statement? It does not deal with the fact that, although we are trying to make the Executive more accountable to Parliament, roughly 75 per cent. of our laws are still made in Europe, where we have no real democratic involvement. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), is it not time for us to have a serious discussion of our position in the EU? Should we not look again at having a referendum on the EU constitution?

Gordon Brown: By the red lines that we drew for the Lisbon treaty, we have done everything in our power to protect the position of British citizens in areas where we want this Parliament and this country to make their own decisions. However, while we are thinking about Europe, I must remind my hon. Friend that 3 million jobs depend on our membership of the EU, that 700,000 British companies trade with the EU, and that 60 per cent. of our exports go to the EU. We have a purposeful relationship with the EU that is in the interests of our economy, environment and security, and the idea that we should not have that relationship at this point in the 21st century seems to me to be wrong.

Hugo Swire: The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister a very pertinent question about the devolution dividend that would be gained from bringing parity to the size of constituencies. The Prime Minister failed to address that, but is not reducing the number of Members of Parliament something that we could do almost immediately?

Gordon Brown: There are probably 3 million people who are not on, or who are not counted on, the electoral register. That means that our constituencies do not reflect the total number of people available or eligible to vote. I think that the first thing that we should do is get the register in a position where everybody is on it. After that, we might want to discuss the fact that the number of seats in this House is far lower than the number of seats in the House of Lords. We might start by reducing the size of the House of Lords.

Richard Burden: May I welcome the wide-ranging statement that my right hon. Friend has made today? I should like to say a word or two about electoral systems. Does he agree that the statement addresses unfinished business from our 1997 manifesto? We have different options if we want to ensure effective Government, voter choice and a link between MP and constituency, and if we want to ensure that votes cast broadly result in a Parliament that reflects the balance of support for parties. The essential thing is that those choices are not for politicians, whether in government or opposition: instead, they should be made by the British people themselves. Does he agree that they should have the right to make those choices?

Gordon Brown: That is what is stated in our manifesto.

Roger Gale: In his statement, the Prime Minister referred to the messages sent by the electorate at the recent elections. However, the messages that he referred to were not the ones that I heard. The first message that people expressedmore in anger than in sorrow, on many occasions, and sometimes the other way aroundwas that the Prime Minister must go. The second message was that the people wanted to pass judgment on Members of this House, and to do so now and in an election.
	The third message was that we should have the promised referendum on the European constitution and the Lisbon treaty. The Prime Minister has ruled out the first two requests but, given his statement today about involving people, why can he not grant the third?

Gordon Brown: I have to say that any MP coming back from these elections knows that many people in the country were giving their verdict, not just on the Government but on how we had conducted ourselves over our expenses. If we ignore that, and do not take the action that is essential [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman is proposing an election and no action on expenses, whereas I am proposing action on expenses now. I am proposing that we clean up the system now. If I may say so, it is the Government who are proposing the Parliamentary Standards Authority and the code of conduct. I am glad that the Opposition parties and I can agree on that, and we should get those proposals through, but I think that there is an unwillingness on the part of the Conservatives to admit the seriousness with which the public have taken the expenses crisis. I hope that they can face up to that.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Prime Minister's reference to Select Committees, but would he support making available to them a vastly increased amount of resources so that they can be even more effective in challenging the Executive? Does he agree that they should be able to call for any papers that they require?

Gordon Brown: I know that my hon. Friend is Chairman of the Transport Committee and that she does a very great job. It is hardly surprising that she is asking for greater resources, but these are matters for decision by the House, not the Government.

Peter Lilley: Is the Prime Minister aware that what really matters to our constituents at the moment and what fuels their anger over parliamentary allowances is the state of the economy and their fear for their jobs and livelihoods? They see the attempt to divert the agenda to consideration of a rag-bag of constitutional reforms as simply a form of displacement activity by the Prime Minister. Is he aware of the definition of displacement activity? It is defined as follows:
	A pattern of behaviour believed to be a means
	by which animals relieve
	tension resulting from two contradicting instincts.
	The definition continues by stating that this activity
	often involves actions such as scratching, excessive grooming or chasing one's own tail.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that we should focus on the economy? If he wants a constitutional reform, he should support my ten-minute Bill, which will deal with a problem raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about Bills leaving this House unconsidered and will suspend the right of the Government to guillotine debate so long as they are forcing this House to sit fewer days than it used to in the past.

Gordon Brown: I cannot really understand the statements that are now coming from Conservative Back Benchers. We must face up to the expenses issue; the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that we do not need to face up to that issue, but we do. That is not displacement activity; it is essential activity in order to restore the reputation of politics. I happen to agree with him about the economy, but the action that we have taken is to move the economy as quickly as possible through the downturn. The Leader of the Opposition fails to ask any questions about the economy at any time we meet.

Martin Salter: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement on constitutional renewal and urge him to ignore some of the protestations of Conservative Members. Can we end, once and for all, the anachronism of constitutional convention, which is all too often used as shorthand for doing nothing or for resisting necessary change? Secondly, can he go a little further and end the scandal of MPs moonlighting to line their own pockets? We are paid a full-time salary for a full-time job and we should honour that.

Gordon Brown: I believe that on 1 July all second incomes will have to be published, in the greatest of detail demanded by the House, by all Members who have second jobs and second incomes. I am glad that the House agreed, and that everybody was satisfied, that that was the right thing to do. The public will then be able to judge for themselves what is happening in that area. As for convention, there are some conventions, but the whole debate about a written constitution is about whether things that are seen as conventional should be made into statutes so that people are absolutely clear about their rights and responsibilities.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILL PRESENTED

Fuel Poverty (No.2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Dr. Alan Whitehead, supported by Mr. Paul Truswell, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Martin Caton, Colin Challen and Mr. David Drew, presented a Bill to make further provision about fuel poverty; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 June, and to be printed (Bill 110) .

Points of Order

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As chairman of the all-party group on first past the post, whose largest contingent is Scottish Labour MPs who have seen the chaos that proportional representation has brought to Scottish elections, may I say how frustrated I am that the Prime Minister did not consult my group and is bypassing this very important body of thought in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is continuing with the statement and getting involved in a debate, and it is really not a matter for the Chair.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On previous occasions when a lot of people have been seeking to catch your eye on a statement, you have indicated that in consideration of the forthcoming legislation you would be minded to give preference to those people who have not been successful in catching your eye. Bearing in mind the importance of the statement that we have just heard and the fact that it affects all of us and our constituencies, will you advise the Government that they should allow consideration of this legislation to proceed without any guillotine or timetable? Will you also ensure that all Back Benchers who wish to participate in the debate can do so?

Mr. Speaker: That might be something that the hon. Gentleman could put to the new Speaker.

Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 (Amendment) Bill

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jim Sheridan: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to apply the provisions of the Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 to the construction industry; and for connected purposes.
	I shall always be proud that this Government gave their support to the passing and implementation of my private Member's Bill targeting illegal gangmasters. That legislation sought to flush out those who were exploiting both migrant and indigenous workers, and despite the powerful arguments put forward at the time, the Bill covered only agricultural and related industries. I, along with the trade unions and legal gangmasterswe were supported by many of my colleagues who are here to support this Bill, and I remain extremely appreciative of their assistanceargued at the time that should that Bill prove effective, the unscrupulous gangmasters would move into other industries. The evidence suggests that that is exactly what has happened. The construction trade was the industry that we used as an example then, because of its diverse and mobile nature, and it is where we find illegal gangmasters working now. Those of us who worked in the construction and related industries are well aware of the dangerous environment that those on the job face, and I will return to that later.
	Migrant workers who come to this country for legitimate work are often lured into the twilight world of illegal gangmasters, so I caution those who blame the workers and ask them to focus instead on the real villains: the illegal gangmasters. Anecdotal evidence from those who have suffered under those unscrupulous people suggests that they are experiencing the same despairing conditions as did those who were exposed in the agriculture industrynone more so than the Chinese workers who perished on the shores of Morecambe bay.
	Despite the current financial situation, most commentators agree that we can build our way out of this downturn with major construction projects, such as the Olympic village, and related issues. What we do not need is a Morecambe bay-type tragedy in the construction of the Olympics. Health and safety matters are extremely important to those in the building trade and wider related industries, and people must have the fundamental right of returning home safely after their work.
	Since 2007, there have been 120 fatal accidents in the construction industry. Again, there is evidence that illegal gangmasters supply unskilled labour to major construction companies and their subcontractors to carry out skilled and dangerous work without taking into consideration the safety consequences for the general public, others on the site and themselves. These gangmasters also undermine the legitimate employers who invest in training, and pay their taxes and national insurance contributions. That is particularly true ofand financially damaging tosmall businesses struggling to survive and compete.
	On the financial implications, there is increasingly tangible evidence that gangmasters, who are required to register, should also be tax-compliant and follow the VAT registration rules. In 2007 alone, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority identified more than 2 million in extra VAT payments for the Exchequerthe figure takes no account of additional income tax and the national insurance contributions now being paid as a result of the GLA's work. So the Government have a vested interest in giving serious consideration to this issue, and I sincerely hope that they do so.
	Members of the House should also be aware of the serious matter of community unrest; where genuine workers see others doing their work and not contributing to the community or wider society, social unrest and frustration is generated. That manifests itself, as has happened this week, in people turning to extremist parties such as the British National party, which are happy to exploit such situations. There is a political advantage in addressing this issue and demonstrating to the workers that we are on their side and on the side of good employers.
	May I give the House just a flavour of some of the activities being undertaken by these gangmasters, by going through some case studies? A14 Vehicle Hire, which is based in Kettering, had its licence revoked with immediate effect after serious concerns were expressed over the safety of its workers. The GLA uncovered allegations of workers being housed in overcrowded and unsafe accommodation, and a number of houses were immediately closed by the local authority for breaches of gas and electrical safety regulations. Some 15 adults and three children were found in a four-bedroom house.
	Timberland Homes Recruitment Ltd had its licence revoked with immediate effect on 6 May 2008.The company was based in Suffolk but sent workers to pick flowers in Cornwall and Scotland. GLA officers found serious abuses, including a threatening letter to workers stating that they were not free to leave before the end of the contract without paying 700, and that if they did not have the money, it would be recovered from the workers or their families in their home country. Some workers stated that they received 24 for a nine-hour day. No time-sheets were used, so pay could not be accurately recorded. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency issued prohibition notices on six Timberland minibuses in Cornwall, but Timberland still transported workers to Scotland in the same vehicles. Timberland Homes Recruitment Ltd did not appeal against the GLA decision. It is no longer permitted to trade in the licensable sectors, but it is believed to be operating in the construction industry.
	I shall give a second case study. Morantus Ltd, which traded as 247 Staff in Burton on Trent, supplied workers across the midlands to British Bakeries, Thorntons and Florette. A GLA investigation found that Robert Taylor, director of Morantus, forced migrant workers to live in run-down, cramped houses, and made them pay over the odds for that accommodation as a condition of finding them work. The officers found a room, measuring 2.8 m by 3.8 m, that housed three adults, two children and a baby; it had a double mattress, a single mattress and a child's seat. Money was withheld from workers, and they were forced to sign standing orders under the threat of not receiving work. Workers were not paid the national minimum wage, and they were bonded to the accommodation; if they wanted to keep their jobs, they had to use, and pay for, the accommodation provided. Morantus lost its appeal against the GLA decision, and is now believed to be trading in the construction industry.
	I turn to the subject of independent research. An independent report published in March 2009 by the universities of Liverpool and Sheffield, commissioned by the GLA, shows that the tough enforcement approach of the GLA makes for effective regulation. The researchers found that
	licensing has been an appropriate tool to regulate labour providers...agency workers are now better placed because of government regulation; and...the GLA is an effective and efficient regulator.
	That is why we would like the gangmaster licensing legislation to be extended to the construction industry.
	In conclusion, the trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Federation of Master Builders are asking for help to get the industry through these difficult times. With a little bit of vision and support, we can bring about a change for the construction industry.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Jim Sheridan, Mr. Michael Clapham, Alun Michael, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. David Hamilton, Mr. Ian McCartney, John Robertson, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Sandra Osborne, Mr. Jim Devine, Mr. Jim McGovern and Mr. David Anderson present the Bill.
	Jim Sheridan accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 109).

Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 1 April (Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 pm at this day's sitting.
	The motion is fairly straightforward, but for the sake of clarity I might just explain one bit to the House. Paragraph 1 of the motion says that paragraphs 3 and 4 of the programme order of 1 April relating to the Bill shall be omitted. Hon. Members might not know what paragraphs 3 and 4 were; they might think that there is some dastardly plot afoot and that we are somehow seeking to undermine the House. The truth of the matter is that paragraph 3 was as follows:
	Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption,
	and paragraph 4 said:
	Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	If the programme motion is carried by the House, we should finish by 4 o'clock. That will protect the minority parties' Opposition half-day debate, which we will enjoy later this afternoon. Obviously, we wish to protect that. We therefore will not proceed with our discussions on the Bill until the moment of interruption. It is important that the two paragraphs from the original programme motion be struck down; otherwise, the House would be disagreeing with itself, and we all know that a
	house divided against itself shall not stand.
	Without further ado, I commend the programme motion.

David Lidington: I welcome the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to the Dispatch Box on his first outing as a Foreign Office Minister; it is good to see him in that post. I should like to place it on record that I have always appreciated the good humour and courtesy shown by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) during her time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I particularly appreciated the way in which she dealt with the Opposition parties on the earlier stages of the Bill.
	I have to say that I am a bit disappointed that the Minister has to defend a programme motion on his first such outing. We have, after all, been hearing incessantly over the past 48 hours about how the Government have changed, how they will listen, how they wish to consult, and how they will now try to make Parliament stronger in its ability to hold the Executive to account, yet we are faced with a programme motion on which, as I understand it, there has not been prior consultation with the Opposition parties. As the Minister well knows, the Bill is not the subject of party political contention, but Members have sought to raise legitimate questions about it. However, it is not a measure on which there will be a major partisan battle. I would have thought that, as an emblem of the promised change of heart to which the Prime Minister has said that he is fervently committed, we could have had, in place of a programme motion, a consultation between the representatives of the different political parties. I would have thought that we could have agreed on a sensible way to handle the further stages of the Bill and proceeded on that basis.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Procedure Committee is undertaking a report on timetabling. I wonder whether he will join his party in the views that it expresses in its evidence to the reportI suspect that that evidence will not say that timetabling should come to an endor whether he will provide his own evidence to say that there should be no timetabling. My view is that there should perhaps be areas where we do not need to timetable. It was necessary to do so today purely and simply because we want to ensure that we protect the half-day debate for the minority parties. It is important that we protect that.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to try to second-guess my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the shadow Chief Whip, which I shall not do. My view on timetabling and programming is that if it is to work and to be seen as the expression of the House's decision on the priority that should be accorded to different pieces of legislation and to different stages of any one piece of legislation, it is important that discussions about programming and timetabling take place well in advance between the representatives of the different political parties represented in the House. A timetable should not be presented by the Government of the day as a fait accompli that everyone else is expected to swallow without dispute.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, we dealt with quite a lot of legislation that contained controversial and contentious points, but which did not involve matters of great dispute between the Government and Opposition, although the issues were important and contentious within Northern Ireland. We were sometimes able to agree to let a debate take place without the imposition of arbitrary guillotines or knives, and to find a way for Parliament, and particularly Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, to express their points of view and represent the interests of their constituents, and yet for that business to be handled within a sensible and timely framework of debate.
	I am disappointed in the Government's attitude this afternoon. Unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I am minded to challenge the programme motion in the Division Lobby.

Jo Swinson: Following our exchanges in the European Committee yesterday and in the Committee Corridor, I want to take the opportunity on the Floor of the House to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to his job.
	I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) regarding the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who built consultation into her approach to the job as Minister and was forthcoming with information on the Bill in its early stages. That is to be welcomed generally in Government, and most particularly on a Bill such as this, on which there is a certain degree of consensus and not much controversy. That cannot be said for many debates in the House at this time.
	To my knowledge, it is true that there was no prior consultation about the programme motion. It was helpful that the Minister read out paragraphs 3 and 4 of the original order. When I looked at the motion, I suddenly thought, Oh my goodness, what are the paragraphs that will be omitted? I found the relevant piece of paper from 1 April and realised that these were not horrendous omissions, but were designed merely to protect the later debate, which I am sure that, as the Minister said, we will all enjoy. The changes were well intentioned and sought to ensure that the time of Opposition parties was protected.
	There is only one further comment that I would make. I am not sure whether this is in the Minister's gift, but perhaps he might be able to speak to his former colleagues in the Department of the Leader of the House, as it might have been helpful if the original paragraphs had been printed on the Order Paper. That would have made it simpler for hon. Members to see at a glance that there was no sinister attempt to stop debate on the Bill, and that the changes made sense. Although I accept the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury about lack of consultation on the programming, the motion makes sense and I am minded to support the Government.

Chris Bryant: With the leave of the House, let me say that I am grateful to both the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for reiterating the pleasant comments that they made yesterday in Committee. I wholly concur with them in everything they said about the now Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron); I know from the private office that I have inherited that she is held in very high esteem by many hon. Members across the House in respect of the way that she conducts her business and the acuity with which she has approached many issues on which there is a wide divergence of views. I think of her as a close personal friend as well, so it is a great honour to be able to follow in herI about to say shoes, but I do not know that I can quite wear her shoes.  [Interruption.] The Conservative Deputy Chief Whip (paid) is trying to entice me into high heels.  [Interruption.] I am paid almost as much as he is. He knows that I reserve that for special occasions with him.
	I know that the hon. Member for Aylesbury is a choral singer, and I hope he will be singing in tune with us this afternoon. He spoke about prior consultation. I am sure he is fully aware that there has been prior consultation about the amount of time allocated. One of the things that I discovered when I was Deputy Leader of the House was that sometimes the prior consultations that happen through the usual channels are completely disowned, as though they had never happened. Despite all those shaking heads, I am sure there was some kind of consultation. I want to make sure that

Jo Swinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Lady will allow me, I shall finish this point, lest I have to start being rude to her. I want to make sure that where we can proceed in unity in the House, we do so. There is no point in trying to score partisan points just for the sake of it, but I reserve my position on that for the hon. Lady.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister for giving way. I know that in his previous job, he was keen to modernise the House. Do not his comments about the usual channels and about whether messages get through signal the need for a shake-up of the usual channels and more transparency in how all these things to do with programming and timing are decided?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady makes a decent point about the openness and transparency with which we do our business. That is a matter for the whole House, not just for the Government. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and others want to take forward some of that agenda. I know also that Members of the hon. Lady's party and others want to pursue the question whether there should be a business committee, but that is not the business of the motion.
	I want to raise two other points in response to the hon. Lady's comments. First, on whether the previous motion should appear on the Order Paper, I am more than happy to make sure that my successor as Deputy Leader of the House, who is also a close friend, knows of her comments. Such an arrangement would fit well with our efforts to make sure that all Ministers answer questions not just by referring to a previous answer, but by providing the information again. It is for the convenience of everybody in the House.

John Hayes: The Minister is right to say that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested from the Front Bench, this is not a partisan matter, but the hon. Gentleman will have noted that when we last debated the subject on the Floor of the House, there was a great deal of interest on the part of hon. Members. The matter was debated at some length and in some detail. It requires full exploration, even though it is not partisan. Is the general principle that when a measure is not partisan, it should not be explored fully?

Chris Bryant: Obviously, I have read  Hansard for the previous debate in the House and the debates in the other House, and I note the comments that were made by many Members. I notice, too, that there seemed to be a growing interest in the debates. It grew as the debates progressed, and I note that that may be happening this afternoon as well. None the less, we said that we would make sure that we had a half-day available for the second debate this afternoon, and there is a great deal of interest among some Members in that debate, so we wanted to make sure that it was protected.
	The second point that I wanted to make was that when officials refer to a piece of legislation as uncontroversialI have been told about 20 times in the past 24 hours that something is not controversialmy experience is that it often encourages people none the less to expatiate. That may happen later. It is important that we ensure that even on non-controversial legislation, where there is no partisan difference, there is a time lag between Second Reading, Committee and Report, so that Members can table amendments as a result of the debate.
	As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) knows, no amendments have been tabled for today, so I hope the views about non-controversiality that were expressed to me were correct. However, it is important to acknowledge that we have made sure that there is a gap between the two stages, and that the Bill, which is important though not controversial, as the hon. Gentleman said, gets proper scrutiny.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the Order of 1 April (Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 4.00 pm at this day's sitting.

Geneva Conventions and United Nations Personnel (Protocols) Bill [ Lords]

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	  
	Amendments of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: As I am sure hon. Members will know, the first clause of the Bill amends the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which itself incorporated the 1949 Geneva conventions; those conventions were built on the 1864 Geneva convention, which was linked to the creation of the Red Cross. On 12 Augustthe glorious 12thit will be the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva conventions. Oddly enough, that happens to be my uncle's birthday; even more oddly, he used to make The Famous Grouse. That date will be a multiple anniversary this year.
	The four conventions of 1949 were built on former versions. First and foremost, they were to protect the wounded or the sick and ensure that such defenceless combatants should be respected and cared for, whatever their nationality. The personnel attending them, the buildings in which they sheltered and the equipment used for their benefit were to be protected, and a red cross on a white background was to be the emblem of that immunity. Other elements of that first convention have been modified over the yearsin relation, for instance, to medical personnel and chaplains. Originally, if such personnel fell into enemy hands, they had to be repatriated immediately. Now, however, the situation is rather different.
	The second convention related to the protection of those in combat at sea. The third was for the protection of prisoners of war. For many centuries, this country has sought to make sure that there was a proper understanding of how prisoners of war should be protected. The French have sometimes tried to remind us about Agincourt, but for the past few hundred years we have been wholeheartedly committed to ensuring that prisoners of war are treated properly. Finally, the fourth convention was to protect civilians.
	The distinctive emblem has been referred to and is being amended by the new optional protocol. It was defined in article 38 of one of the 1949 Geneva conventions:
	As a compliment to Switzerland, the heraldic emblem of the red cross on a white ground, formed by reversing the Federal colours, is retained as the emblem and distinctive sign of the Medical Service of armed forces.
	That gave protection to all those who were serving.

Oliver Heald: I am following the Minister's points with great interest. Does the symbol of Switzerland not also carry the connotation of neutrality and have a lot of history behind it, to do with the Hospitallers and so on? The sign is very distinctive and well recognised worldwide. It is known, and the same is true of the red crescent. How can the new symbol be marketed so that people fighting wars in far-distant places will recognise it and give it the same authority? We are talking about signs that are so emblematic and well known. Is adding a third one a good idea?

Chris Bryant: There is already a third one in the conventionsthe red lion and sunso that Persia had an emblem that it could adopt. The hon. Gentleman is right that the signs are emblematic. I say that with a slight rise of the eyebrow, because what one flag or emblem symbolises to one set of peopleperhaps even the majority of the worldwill not necessarily be symbolised to everybody.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the Hospitallers, and the reference to the crusades is not lost on some people, although anybody in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate the association. None the less, the truth is that in some cases it has been difficult for us to ensure that connotations of a religious war or crusade do not undermine the work that the Red Cross or Red Crescent are able to do.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. In broad terms, I am sympathetic to the Bill. I worry, however, that we will have symbol after symbol until almost every country, or every continent, has a symbol in addition to the ones that we have already. In the end, the famous nature of the red cross might be diminished.

Chris Bryant: The honest truth is that in the vast majority of cases, certainly as they affect the United Kingdom, people will retain either the red cross or the red crescent. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should not be amplifying these symbols. As I said, we have had three emblems, including the red lion and sun, which modern Iran chooses not to use. In a sense, therefore, we are back down to two. There have been moves in some other countries towards being able to create other symbols; hon. Members may want to make reference to the situation in Israel. In wanting to be able to accommodate the whole world, we should not be seeking to create a different emblem for every part of it. We should be going through a proper process to ensure that the rules governing emblems are adhered to so that there are not wild divergences and they are properly respected.

Peter Atkinson: The Minister touched on the star of David, which the Israelis want as their symbol. Does he anticipate that the advent of the red crystal will reduce pressure from Israel to use the star of David? Otherwise, there could be three, if not four symbols in the middle east.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Israeli national society, the Magen David Adom, has used the red star of David, although only internally, which has meant that it has not been able to join the international Red Cross movement. Importantly, the introduction of the red crystal has enabled Israel to sign up to become a part of the Red Cross movement, so Israelis and Palestinians have been able to share in the movement. That is not the biggest step that we need to take in the middle east process, but it helps to move us forward.

Gerald Howarth: This is a very important issue; it is not only about emblems but about their significance. I fully share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the red cross is universally recognised. The Minister will understand that I approach the issue from a military perspective. The armed forces know and recognise the red cross; equally, it is generally the case that the red cross is not abused. I am worried that unless there is a rigorous regime to ensure that the red crystal is not abused, our armed forces, who are already feeling hamstrung by human rights legislation, could find that our enemies abuse the red crystal and our troops would therefore be at risk. What assurances can the Minister give Britain's armed forces in that respect?

Chris Bryant: I know of the interest that the hon. Gentleman has historically taken in the armed forces, which, as he knows, I share. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure that there is strong protection for the symbols that are already used, and equally so for the red crystal. Where it is used because it is thought to be the most appropriate means of protecting the medical forces, we need to ensure that it is fully understood. My experience during a brief visit to Basra with the armed forces parliamentary scheme showed me that the British armed forces are very well attuned to the business of winning hearts and minds, and part of that will be making the right decisions on the ground about which emblem to use. Equally, we have to ensure that as many countries as possible ratify and enter into this process, so that they understand, and can ensure that their armed forces understand, the significance of the emblems.
	It is important to emphasise that the decision on the red crystal did not come out of thin air; it was a long, complicated process involving a lot of different countries that had found it difficult to decide between different emblems. For instance, in Eritrea the decision is not between a emblem that does not exist and one that does, but between the red cross and the red crescent, because those are the symbols of the two religious communities in the country, who have very strongly held religious views. In that circumstance, the red crystal forestalls the need for inventing lots of new emblems by deciding on one that can be used more generically.

Stewart Hosie: I agree with the Minister that there has to be international support in developing an understanding of the red crystal symbol. However, are there not practical concerns that it might be misinterpreted, particularly on a battlefield? A red crystal on an armband worn by an orderly will look like a lozenge or a diamond shape unless the arm is bent, when it could look like a red square.

Chris Bryant: The same could be true of a red cross, because if the arm is bent in the right way it ends up no longer being a cross, but a sword. I am afraid that those issues remain. In fact, as often as not the colour is the determinant. Professional brand managers say that people do not recognise a brand until they have seen it 16 times. After that, the effect will often be created by the precise Pantone shade that is used, the combination of red and white, and seeing it in a military context. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, as have all other hon. Members.

Robert Smith: Is there any general move in order to try to remove ambiguity towards the crystal evolving into the main symbol and the other two going out of use?

Chris Bryant: No, there is not, and I do not think that that would be appropriate. There is no need to abandon the red cross or the red crescent, which are very well known and much respected symbols. However, there are circumstances in which a third or fourth emblem is necessary, or would be useful. There is no need, certainly in the short term, for us to move towards abandoning the red cross.

John Hayes: This is an important subject, as I said when we debated the programme motion. The universality of the cross and the crescent is their virtue. The problem with the Bill is that it proposes a multiplication of symbols, or emblems. I cannot think that that is compatible with universality, which has been at the heart of the success of the cross and the crescent.

Chris Bryant: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is interesting that he used the phrase, The universality of the cross. To many conservative evangelical Christians, that phrase would have a capital U and a capital C, and it would have a very strong religious significancealthough he obviously did not intend it in that sense. For many, the cross is what they live and die for. In that contextin which, in some parts of the world, religion can be one of the axes that is used to create division and warsit is important that we are able to have an additional symbol. He refers to a proliferation of symbols, but that will not happen: there will not be additional symbols coming down the line in a couple of years' time. One more symbol is being added to the list, with one of the three existing symbols no longer being in use.

John Hayes: The cross has been used as a symbol since prehistoric times. It can be traced to almost every culture, Christian and other, as a symbol that represents a variety of things, such as health, peace or fertility, depending on which culture one turns to. To identify the cross purely, or largely, with the Christian tradition is to misunderstand its history.

Chris Bryant: I am being tempted down theological lines, which is quite dangerous, so I should rather like to say, Get thee behind me, Satan. I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the point that there are situations in which forces that are trying to do good would be afforded better protection and better understanding among the local population if they did not use a symbol that could be misunderstood as having a largely religious undertone or overtone. That is what we are seeking to avoid.

Oliver Heald: I am trespassing on the Minister's good will, but we have established that a symbol such as the cross or the crescent is historic and well known. Even in places where there is not a proper education system and there is not an easy opportunity to market a new symbol, people know about crosses and crescents. How will we be able to establish the new brand of the crystal in a war-torn place where perhaps only half the children go to school? In such places, where this really matters, will it be easy to establish the new symbol?

Chris Bryant: I do not believe that we need to establish it in every part of the world with immediate effect. The truth of the matter is that there are many parts of the world where the current symbols are perfectly adequate and perfectly well understood. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there might be parts of the world where brands cannot be marketed. I do not think that Coca-Cola believes that. It believes that there is no such part of the world. One of the great successes of Mr. Henri Dunant's original idea following the battle of Solferino was that something without words in it could cross linguistic barriers and be readily understandable around the world. That is what the Red Cross movement has achieved.
	I wish to pay substantial tribute to the British Red Cross Society, which has been around since 1870we were one of the earlier countries to adopt the red cross. It does great work, and I know that many people hold it in high esteem and would be saddened if it changed from the Red Cross Society to anything else. However, it wholeheartedly supports the Bill. Around the world, the Red Cross movement hopes that as many countries as possible will ratify the change. It has already meant that the Israeli and Palestinian societies have been able to join the movement, and it will give the movement a strong future for many decades, and I hope centuries.

John Hayes: I have no desire to be unnecessarily disputatious, but the Minister mentions Henri Dunant and Solferino. I recommend to the House Dunant's book on Solferino. What he wanted was not only protection but, as the Minister will know, an international agreement to secure that protection. Implicit in that appeal was the recognition, through a symbol, of protection that was non-partisan and universally available. I am very concerned about the issue of universality, and I hope that the Minister might say another word about it before he sits down, after which I am sure we can make time for other contributions.

Chris Bryant: I suspect that however many words I say about the universality of the original symbol, I will not be able to appease the hon. Gentleman. The truth of the matterI keep on saying the truth of the matter, and I must stop doing sois that when the original symbol was created it was not envisaged that there would be parts of the world where there might be disputation about whether it involved religious significance. Consequently, we have grown to have not just one symbol but three, and now we are moving towards having a fourth. I like to think, and those who dedicate their lives to the Red Cross movement believe, that that is fully consistent with what Mr. Dunant aspired to. Indeed, as a former deputy leader of the Labour party said, sometimes we need traditional values in a modern setting. That is precisely what we can advance now.
	As I have said, three emblems are currently allowedthe cross, the crescent and the lion and sun, although the last is not much used now. There are some problems, including misunderstanding about religious symbols. For some, the cross is a highly religious and divisive symbol. For others it is a symbol of unity, and when they see the red cross they do not see a religious symbol at all. Eritrea has been unable to choose which is the right symbol to use, and Israel likewise. I am delighted that bringing forward the red crystal has made it possible to enable both Israelis and Palestinians to take part in the movement.

Kim Howells: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. It is a very important one, and I know that he will do an excellent job.
	May I ask my hon. Friend to clear up some of the nuts and bolts of the matter? If three symbols will be accepted, that does not mean, does it, that nations will be able to pick and choose which of the three they will allow people to use to visit political prisoners, for example, and do all the things that the Red Cross does so brilliantly at the moment, often in very difficult circumstances? It will not somehow result in three different organisations that people will use for nefarious purposes, destroying the central goodness of what the Red Cross and the Red Crescent do.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his comments. He was a fine Minister in the Foreign Office, and there are fond memories of him skulking around the corridorsit was not him skulking around the corridors, it is the memories.
	My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will not be different organisations, and the structure will still be the same. It would be wholly wrong for people to swap armbands every afternoon or every second day according to who they were visiting. In the vast majority of cases, they will stick with the symbols that are already knownthe red cross and the red crescent. However, there may be circumstances in which a national organisation, working only within its own territory, wants to incorporate within the crystal its own symbol, for instance the red star of David. That could happen only in national circumstances, which seems sensible.
	Likewise, if British defence medical agencies and services overseas judged in a particular conflict that using the red crystal rather than the red cross would afford them greater protection and bring greater understanding among the public, they would be free to do so. That choice has to be made on a pragmatic basis, but it should not change and flip-flop all the time, because that would itself undermine clarity. For the most part, I suspect that they will not need to take that step, but in some circumstances they will.

David Lidington: Will the Minister pursue a little further the point that the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made? Can he confirm that the distinction will be between the internationally recognised protective symbols, which will now include the red crystal and which confer the right to protection upon an organisation or vehicle, and an indicative symbol such as the red star of David, which could be used within a national territory as part of a fundraising or publicity drive or as a means of identifying an individual or vehicle? Will it be only the cross, the crescent and the crystal that will confer the right to protection under both domestic and international law?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is righthe put it better than I could, as doubtless he often will in the many debates in which we engage, though I am not sure whether I shall admit to that on subsequent occasions.
	There is a difference between using the emblem for protective purposes and using it for fundraising or for the relevant body in one's own country. That is why it is important to police the convention equally. We want to ensure that the Red Cross movement is not disaggregated or undermined.

Oliver Heald: Things could become very confusing. If every country has a choice between the red crescent, the red cross and the red crystal for protecting vehicles and in addition a local brand, such as a red antelope or a red star of David, how on earth will people in places where there are armies that are not well organised like the British Army, but are in wars in informal settings and not much cop, be clear about what constitutes a protective symbol? It sounds like a recipe for confusion.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry if I have misled the hon. GentlemanI never want to do that. We do not envisage every country in the world inventing its own brand, emblem or logo because, as he said, that would lead to confusion and undermine the whole proposal. People use the existing emblems because they afford protection. If they no longer afforded protection, people would not use them. If there were so many emblems as to cause confusion, that would undermine the structure and point of the Red Cross movement. That is why the provision is tied up with so much determination by all the states that are signatories to the convention to deal robustly with any abuse of the emblems.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is leaning forward desirously.

Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his new post. Who decides which symbol or emblem will be used in a particular country? He talks about signatories to the convention, but how many have signed up to the proposal and how many have so far ratified it?

Chris Bryant: I thought somebody might ask that question and I have the answer. Forty counties, including Israel, have ratified and a further 48 have signed but have yet to complete the ratification process. So we are doing well. If British armed forces medical services were taking part in a war entirely on a British basis, Britain would decide which emblem afforded its medical services the greatest protection. In the vast majority of cases, it will be the red cross. If we were part of a multinational operation, it would make sense for the whole operation to decide how to proceed. Otherwise, as hon. Members have said, a proliferation of different symbols would undermine the protection that an emblem affords. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
	I will try to answer some further questions. A few hon. Members have referred to the combination of emblems. As the hon. Memberor the hon. choristerfor Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, when used by armed forces medical and religious personnel as protection against attack in a conflict, the emblems cannot be used in combination. Only the four distinctive emblems can be used for protective purposes. For indicative purposes, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, national societies in the various states that decide to use the red crystal may choose to incorporate the red cross, the red crescent or the red star of David in the red crystal when using it in conformity with relevant national legislation. A national societyfor example, the British Red Crossmay use and display the combined emblem only within its national territory. That means that the British Red Cross could display an emblem showing the red cross in the frame of the red crystal, but only to promote its activities in the UK.
	In a previous debate in another place, there was some discussion about the protection afforded to United Nations facilities in Gaza. We were all troubled by the events at the end of last year, and the Prime Minister made Britain's view very clear. International humanitarian law protects all persons who take no active part in the hostilities against attack, regardless of whether they use a protective emblem. That includes UN personnel and the facilities that they use. In the UN context, only medical and religious personnel participating in operations under its auspices can use the red crystal, the red cross and the red crescent. The UN facilities in Gaza could not therefore use any of the humanitarian emblems, but they were marked with UN symbols to protect them against attack.
	Some hon. Members have raised the related matter of cluster munitions. We are keen to move forward with legislation on that and we shall do so when parliamentary time allows.
	Members in the House of Lords raised the signing of protocol V of the United Nations convention on certain conventional weapons in November 2003, and hon. Members may therefore be interested in that. Discussions are continuing between the Departments involved to work out the arrangements for funding our future obligations, which arise from the protocol. It has proved more difficult than any of us anticipated to resolve the potential future financial liability arising from ratification. In the meantime, the UK follows the principles enshrined in the protocol, regardless of whether we have been able to ratify.
	I do not think that I need to make further comments on the first clause. I hope that, despite the slightly querulous questioning about whether we are multiplying the number of emblems too much, all hon. Members will feel that the clause is the right way in which to proceed.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the clause, and I shall not oppose the stand part motion at the debate's conclusion. I shall simply make a couple of brief points.
	I was intrigued when the Minister, almost in parenthesis, referred to the old symbol of the red lion and sun, which the royalist regime in Iran employed. I think I understood him to say that, although the symbol is no longer used, it remains a part of the appropriate conventions and it could be revived in future by some hypothetical Government in Iran, or somewhere else in the world, who chose to revert to the red lion and sun.
	The adoption of the red crystal is the outcome of pragmatic negotiations and I am pleased that the decision means that it will be possible at long last for the Israeli and the Palestinian humanitarian organisations to participate fully in the International Red Cross and Red Crescent family.

Chris Bryant: Just for the sake of completeness, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the red lion and sun is available for use only in Iran.

David Lidington: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point clear.
	The Minister said that the British Red Cross Society was strongly behind clause 1 and the Bill as a whole, and I can certainly vouch for that. I would say to those of my hon. Friends who perhaps still harbour some uncertainty about the measures that, having earlier this year met the chairman of the British Red Cross Society and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Dr. Kellenberger, I am completely satisfied that both organisations strongly support what is proposed in clause 1 and the Bill as a whole.
	I was grateful for the Minister's assurances that it would be wrong to see the red crystal as a symbol that was intended to supplant either the red cross or the red crescent; were that to become the case, it would arouse considerable disquiet among the many thousands of people in all our constituencies who have given freely of their time and money over the years to support the efforts of the British Red Cross Society.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) referred in an intervention to the potential use of the red crystal by British troops. I noted that the Minister said that its use by British forces would be a pragmatic decision for field commanders to take on the basis of circumstances and that no presumption would be made that they should abandon the red cross. I would simply express the clear view that it would be wrong were there to be any pressure or any assumption on the part of the Ministry of Defence that such a change ought to be made. It is better for the confidence of the British public that the red cross, which is the symbol that people in this country recognise and respect, should continue to be used by our armed forces wherever possible. A departure from that principle should certainly be the exception, rather than be allowed to become the norm.
	With that slight reservation, I am happy to give my support to clause 1.

Jo Swinson: This has been a fascinating and informative debate, not least because we have found out the birthday and occupation of the Minister's relations. It is always interesting to have some new information and some anecdotes to lighten the debate.
	This is an important debate on an important Bill, which the Government are right to introduce and ensure that the UK passes. To people in this country, the red cross is seen not as a religious symbol but as something entirely neutral. However, if that is not the case in some places in the world, and if that can lead to confusion and, potentially, endanger people who are doing important work, it is obviously right that the international community should act to change the situation. I am sure we have all received information and leaflets from the ICRC encouraging us to support the Bill. We have had some debate about the origins of the cross and how it has been used by different cultures. In some contexts, the red cross is obviously seen as religious, but it is worth bearing in mind the fact that it is the reversal of the Swiss flag, and therefore represents neutrality.
	I was intrigued by the Bill's description of the crystal, which it defines as
	the emblem of a red frame in the shape of a square on edge on a white ground, conforming to the illustration in Article 1 of the Annex to the third protocol.
	As was remarked upon in previous stages, this Bill is one of the first to include a diagram.

Chris Bryant: This is not the first Bill to do that: the Bill that became the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 did so as well. It is just a shame that we cannot print in red.

Jo Swinson: A mine of intriguing information is our Minister. Presumably the 1957 Act introduced the red cross, but I wonder whether he could say in summing up whether it introduced the red crescent too or whether that was introduced in a later Act.
	The shape in the Bill, which is described as a crystal, could also be described as a diamond. Indeed, at election time I have been known to have posters in the shape of a diamondat least we tend to call them diamonds. However, the marketing manager in me was quite impressed that, after all the discussion about the most appropriate shape, we have called the shape a crystal rather than a diamond. We therefore have that nice alliteration, with the red cross, the red crescent and the red crystal. It seems that everything has been thought of.
	In answer to an intervention, the Minister said that 40 countries had ratified the measures and that another 48 had signed up to them. I do not want to confuse this point with the debate on clause 2I appreciate that the protocols in clause 2 have also been signed and ratified by a certain number of countriesbut I wonder whether the Minister could inform us in his final remarks whether a certain number is needed for the measures to come into effect. I appreciate that that is the case for the other protocolsthe Minister pointed out on Second Reading that a further number was required, and I think that the magic number was 22. Some time has passed between that debate and this debate, so it would be welcome to know whether the provisions are yet in effect or whether we still await that.
	I would like to welcome the Minister's comments about cluster munitions and the fact that the Government have moved from their position of allowing so-called smart cluster bombs, which none the less maim and kill indiscriminately. I very much welcome the Minister's commitment to find time for the Government to bring forward the ban on such munitions. It is important when we are discussing the technicalities of a symbol that will be used in war zones that we remember the horrors that are experienced where such symbols are used. We are talking about people being wounded and killed in the most horrific circumstances, so the issue is of the gravest importance.
	The general consensus is welcome, and I will be supporting clause 1.

Alan Reid: This has been an interesting and informative debate. I am fully in support of the Bill, but I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to a couple of the points that have arisen.
	First, I have a slight concern about the possible proliferation of symbols. It was mentioned that although the Iranians do not currently use the red lion and sun, they still have the right to use it. Can the Minister clarify whether they have the right to use it only in Iran or could they use it anywhere in the world, and if so, could that cause confusion?
	My second point is about implementation. When does the international agreement come into effect? Does it need a certain number of countries to ratify it? At what point will the new red crystal be used as a symbol of protection? Once countries have ratified the agreement, are they entitled to use the symbol or is there a point at which the whole world would be entitled to use it? I would be grateful for clarification on those two points.

John Hayes: As the Minister and the shadow Minister said, this is not a partisan matter, but it is an important one and, in my judgment, it requires a rather fuller exploration than it has enjoyed thus far, although I do not say that in a pejorative way.
	As one might expect with such a short Bill, clause 1 goes to the heart of the matter. The Bill's purpose is, in essence, to amend previous Acts, in particular the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which I hope to say a little more about in my contribution. Inasmuch as the Bill amends the 1957 Act, much of what we have discussed so far has focused on the change to that Act in respect of emblems. We debated this matter on Second Reading, but at that stage we did not know quite how the Bill would fare in the other place. Since then, I have received representations on the issueI am sure that other hon. Members have as wellfrom a variety of agencies and constituents.
	This is first of all about symbols, protocols and conventions. When the Minister says that the cross might cause offence, I am minded to reprise the remarks of G. K. Chesterton, who said that those who dislike the cross do so not because it is a dead symbol but because it is a live symbol. The cross has significance not only because it is recognised as a Christian symbol but because it has been associated with Christian and non-Christian cultures since time immemorial as a symbol of peace, good health and good spirit.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman cites G. K. Chesterton, but Chesterton had a very firm understanding of the theological significance of the cross. He referred to it primarily in a proselytising sense. Indeed, that might be the potential danger in its use. I should also like to point out that I never used the word offence in relation to the cross. This is merely a question of whether people might misunderstand the red cross and take it to have an exclusively religious significance that is not intended.

John Hayes: Of course that is true about Chesterton. He was making a case for a Christian emblem. The case that I am making is that the living nature of the cross extends beyond that narrow definition. The cross is perceived fairly universally as a symbol of peace, of the union of heaven and earth, and of the sun and the stars. It is seen as a world centre and a cosmic axis. It represents the human form, with its four cardinal points. It can map the fourfold system, the four directionsnorth, south, east and westthe four seasons and the four elements.
	In Christian imagery, as the Minister is well qualified to attest, the cross usually has an elongated southern element, because the cross in Christian imagery represents the crucifix. The red cross does not look like a crucifix; it is a simple cross, each part of which is the same length. It has a symmetry. Of course I accept that the red crescent was adopted because of the doubts that the Minister has articulatedthe debate on this matter has gone on for a long timebut I am not sure that those doubts are well founded, given the universality of the cross.
	When we debated the new symbol, the Minister acknowledged that it would not gain immediate acceptance because it might not be recognised straight away. Therein lies the nub of the problem. If the principle of a cross or a crescent is that it is widely recognisable and universally understood, and that its protective value as a device lies in that comprehension, a symbol that does not proffer immediate recognition might not proffer the protection that it is designed to provide.
	I do not want to dwell on the specifics of the symbol at this point, but to set the matter in context. As I have said, this debate has been going on almost since the beginning of the Red Cross movement. A lively debate has been conducted since the end of the 19th century on whether the cross should be the movement's only symbol, and whether it was the appropriate symbol to use in all places at all times. That was the very debate that gave rise to the adoption of the red crescent.
	The problem with the solution proposed in the Bill is that it would be entirely possible for a multiplication of symbols to emerge, as has been suggested by several contributors to the debate. It is possible that, once this new symbol has been adopted, others might make similar claims. The point about universality is important. It is probable that we will get away with having one more symbol, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the Red Cross itself have said that they will not oppose the proposal. But what would happen if we were to add one or two more symbols? At what point would the recognition that lies at the heart of a symbol's value become compromised? I make no judgment about that; I simply raise the point for hon. Members' consideration. Indicative devices show the link that a person or object has with a movement. Once that link has been broken in terms of popular perception, the device loses its force. Emblems should typically bear additional information, as most emblems do not speak for themselves. They imply more than the simplicity of a red cross.
	It is important to set all these considerations in their historical context. The Red Cross is the world's largest humanitarian movement, with approximately 97 million volunteers worldwide. As the Minister said, it was inspired by Henry Dunant after his experience of seeing the dead and dying lying forlorn. He felt that something should be done on a non-partisan basis to ease their suffering and to deal with similar tragic circumstances. He wrote about that after the battle of Solferino in 1859, and I recommend his book to Members, because it makes the case that lies at the heart of these considerations.
	Henry Dunant proposed the creation of national relief societies made up of volunteers trained in peacetime to provide neutral and impartial help to relieve suffering in times of war. Central to his concerns was his second proposal, which was to establish an international agreementthis became the Geneva conventions, as we now knowto oversee the support and humanitarian assistance that he craved. The proposals in the final resolutions at the conference that ensued from his efforts were adopted in October 1863. They are simple, and they are highly relevant to this part of the Bill. They included proposals for the foundation of a national relief society for wounded soldiers, for neutrality and for the protection of the wounded, for the utilisation of volunteer forces for the relief and assistance of those on battlefields, for the organisation of additional conferences to enact these concepts in legally binding international treaties, and for the introduction of a common, distinctive protection symbol for medical personnel in the fieldnamely, a white armlet bearing a red cross.
	The armlet bearing a red cross was the original protection symbol declared at the 1864 Geneva convention. It represents a reversal of the Swiss national flag, and it was adopted to honour the Swiss founder of the movement, Henry Dunant, and his home country. That is interesting in itself, because few would argue that the Swiss flag is specifically identified by most reasonable people as a Christian flag.  [Interruption.] I understand why the Minister is shaking his head, but most people do not think of the Swiss flag first and foremost as a Christian emblem.
	Ideas to introduce a uniform and neutral protection symbol, as well as a specific design, came from the original founding members of the international committee. The red cross was initially defined as a protection symbol under article 7 of chapter VII of the Geneva convention of 1864The distinctive emblemand then under article 38 of the Geneva convention of 1949
	For the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field.
	There is an unofficial agreement within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements that the shape of the cross should be of a cross composed of five squares. I argued earlier that the distinctiveness of the red cross and the difference between it and the kind of cross typically used in Christian imagery are highly pertinent. However, regardless of the shape, any red cross on a white background should be valid and must be recognised as a protection symbol in conflicts.
	Here I believe the Minister has a valid point. Although the red cross that we all think of first when we think about the Red Cross movement is the one used officially on most occasions, in the heat of battle as it were, other red crosses might be used that could be more easily misinterpreted. I take the Minister's point that he did not use the word offence, but I am going to use it and say that it could give rise to offence, making such a symbol less useful or worse. I do not therefore disregard the points raised by the Minister and others about the need to be sensitive on this subject, but I do really worry about the possibility of the proliferation of the number of symbols and any effect that might have on universal recognition.

Kim Howells: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's historical lesson, which is very instructive, but I want to tease something out of him. Is he worried about the possibility that iconoclastic leaders such as Chavez, Ahmadinejad or Kim Il Jung would want their own symbols for nationalistic purposes and to reinforce their independence? Is that the sort of proliferation that he is worried about?

John Hayes: It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman put it that way. I had not wanted to make a case quite as arch as that, as I did not at first think that symbols could be used in such a malevolent way. I was more concerned about confusion or even mischievous use. He is quite right, however, that it may well be worse than that and my concerns about confusion may well be an underestimation of the problem. It is indeed possible for the malevolent proliferation of symbols to take place in tandem with a nationalistic approach, which would be entirely contrary and injurious to the principles established in those early days by the founders of the Red Cross movement and, indeed, those of the Red Crescent movement. Those principles are widely recognised throughout the House as doing immeasurable good, so the right hon. Gentleman makes a useful point about what might happen. I know that the Minister will be as concerned as anyone about that and will do all he can on behalf of the Government to ensure that those possibilities are excluded, if at all possible, in the councils in which these issues are debated.
	I do not wish to prolong these matters, but I was about to say that of the 186 national societies currently recognised by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 152 use the red cross as their official organisational emblem. In addition, the red cross is used by the national society of Tuvalu, which has applied for official recognition. Henri Dunant, who has figured largelyand not unreasonably soin our considerations, also proposed that countries should adopt an international agreement that will recognise the status of medical services and the wounded on the battlefield. The resulting Geneva convention is now widely recognised by countries throughout the world as providing relief and support to the victims of international conflicts, disasters and wars. That includes refugees from the Hungarian revolution of 1956, from Vietnam in 1976, from the Iranian earthquake in 1962 and the famine in Africa in 1989; and in the UK, the British Red Cross has provided emergency relief following the disaster in Aberfan, the Lockerbie air disaster, the Easter floods in 1998 and the devastating summer floods in 2007.
	The reason all that is important in respect of this part of the Bill and the Bill as a whole is that there is no guarantee that we are merely talking about proliferation of symbols internationally. The worry is not about the support of the Red Cross movement, but that independent people might choose to use a different symbol here. That is something that I hope the Minister will say a few words about.
	The more symbols there are in existence, the more there are to choose from; there is no guarantee that mistakenly, mischievously, perhaps even malevolently, people will not choose to use symbols other than the red cross, even within our own borders. The white flag has been recognised as a sign of the wish to negotiate or surrender, and firing on anyone displaying it in good faith is forbidden. With the addition of the red cross, the flag's message is taken a stage further, demanding respect for the wounded and for anyone coming to their aid.
	Let us not forget that the institution of the Red Cross was set up to transcend national borders and religious differences. There remains little evidence that the institution or the red cross itself was intended to have Christian connotations. I know that soldiers of the Ottoman empire claimed that it caused offence to Muslims, which is why we had the debate about the red crescent so long ago and indeed it explains why the red crescent was instituted. But there remains an argument that it would be better to reaffirm the red crossas the ICRC wanted to do, as the Minister will know, in 1949. I nevertheless understand the Minister's point and the purpose and good will that lies behind what he said to the House and what is in this measure.
	I want to say a little more about the debate that took place in 1957, simply because a brief examination of the  Hansard on that occasion reveals how support for the red cross was well embedded when I suppose the memory of the second world war was altogether more alive in the House and in the hearts and minds of the Members who debated the convention at that time. The Member representing Plymouth, Devonport spoke eloquently and movingly in that debate about her work in both the British and the international Red Cross, though I shall not detain the House, however, by quoting chapter and verse from that debate.
	We were invited in earlier contributions to say a few words about Israel. I propose to do so before we move on to clause 2, because it is highly relevant to clause 1. The Minister alluded toalthough he did not, understandably, provide much detailthe controversy over Israel's national society, Magen David Adom and the dispute over the neutral protection symbols used in Israel. The idea of a red crystalpreviously referred to as a red lozenge or red diamondhad its genesis as a result of that debate, and it proved to be the most popular of the various symbols that were suggested as additions to the red cross and red crescent. However, as we now understand, amending the Geneva conventions to add a new protection symbol requires a diplomatic conference of all 192 state signatories to the conventions. That conference was held in 2005, organised by the Swiss Government, to adopt the third symbol. It introduced the red crystal, which is illustrated in the Bill, detailed in the explanatory notes and referred to in the clause.
	The third protocol refers to the new symbol as the third protocol emblem. The rules for the use of the symbol are based on the third additional protocol to the Geneva conventions. First, the protocol states:
	Within its own national territory, a national society can use either of the recognized symbols... alone, or incorporate any of these symbols or a combination of them into the Red Crystal.
	That possibility exacerbates the risk that I described earlier. It is not merely that different symbols could be used in different places, but also that different symbols could be used in the same place, or used in combination in the same place. That could beI put it no more stronglya recipe for confusion, possibly even for disaster.
	Secondly, the protocol establishes that
	a national society which does not use one of the recognized symbols as its emblem has to incorporate its unique symbol into the Red Crystal, based on the previously mentioned condition about communicating its unique symbol to the state parties of the Geneva Conventions.
	Thirdly, it adds:
	For protective use, only the symbols recognized by the Geneva Conventions can be used. Specifically, those national societies which do not use one of the recognized symbols as their emblem have to use the Red Crystal without incorporation of any additional symbol.
	On 22 June 2006, the ICRC announced that the International Red Cross and the Red Crescent Movement were adopting the red crystal as an additional emblem for use by the national societies, and announced the recognition of the Palestine Red Crescent Society and the Israeli national society Magen David Adom. On 14 January 2007, the third additional protocol entered into force. What we are doing here, as is necessary, is amending legislation in accordance with those changes.
	I had not intended to say anything about the red lion and sun, which has also been mentioned. However, if fear of proliferation lies at the heart of the lingering doubts felt by some of us about these proposals, that is coloured to some extent by the fact that from 1924 until 1980 Iran used a red lion and sun symbol for its national society, based on the dynastic flag and emblem associated with that country. The red lion and sun was formally recognised as a protection symbol in 1929, together with the red crescent, and despite its shift to the red crescent in 1980, Iran explicitly maintains the right to use the symbol. It is therefore still recognised by the Geneva convention as a protection symbol with status equal to that of the red cross, the red crescent and, now, the new red crystal. Contrary to what might be assumed, we do not have one, two or even three symbols; we have four that are recognised, are established, and can be used as a matter of choice.
	I shall not say much about the red shield of David, but Israel has used it as an organisational symbol since its foundation. It was initially proposed as an addition to the red cross, but that is not entirely relevant to this part of the Bill.
	I have no doubt that the intention behind the proposal is honourable, and that good will prevails. That has been exemplified by what has been said today by the Minister and other speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. He has spoken to representatives of the Red Cross in the United Kingdom, who have said that they have no objection to the measure. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have given, it is important for us to explore the subject.
	Since Second Reading, I have received letters and representations from constituents and others expressing doubt about the advisability of adding the new symbol, and also confusion about its meaning. This is a complex matter, but I invite the Minister to consider the possibility that the anodyne nature of the crystal may be tantamount to ambiguity about its meaning and purpose. Had we defeated the programme motion and been allowed the longer time for debate that was desirable, I would have spoken in much greater detail about the subject of signs and symbols. It is at the core of the debate, and requires more consideration than we are able to give it.
	To be useful and meaningful, a symbol must transmit a clear message. It need not communicate that message in the same specific way as a signthat is the difference between a sign and a symbol, is it not?but there must be a degree of clarity about its intent. When we think of something that signposts, we think of something very particular; when we think of something being symbolic of something else, we envisage a slightly broader concept. A symbol is not a sign, but it must have meaning none the less. I have some doubts about the crystal in that context. Because of the effort that has been made not to be contentious, it is possibly rather too anodyne to serve its purpose.
	I end my speech with those few remarks, which betray a certain scepticism on my part, but certainly no hostility towards either the measure or the Minister. I hope that we can soon move on to the rather more meaty and lengthy debate that will be necessary to deal with the other clauses.

Malcolm Moss: I assume, Mrs. Heal, that I will be in order if I speak in the clause stand part debate about the schedule to the Bill and its proposed schedule 7 to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, as clause 1(8) refers to inserting schedule 7 after schedule 6, and at our rate of progress this afternoon I doubt whether we will ever reach the schedule, let alone Third Reading.

Sylvia Heal: Yes, as I doubt very much that we will reach a debate on proposed schedule 7, it is indeed appropriate for the hon. Member to comment on it at this stage.

Malcolm Moss: Thank you very much, Mrs. Heal.
	Proposed schedule 7 states:
	 Recalling further that National Societies undertaking activities on the territory of another State must ensure that the emblems they intend to use within the framework of such activities may be used in the country where the activity takes place and in the country or countries of transit.
	This comes back to a question that I put to the Minister in an intervention: who decides? The phrase may be used suggests that permission for a symbol to be used needs to be given by the country that our armed forces are operating in or travelling through. Is that vested in international lawin other words, does the country have to have signed up to the Geneva Conventions Act 1957or does the local law of the country itself determine whether it accepts a particular symbol? Also, if contiguous countries have different views, will our armed forces and their vehicles have to keep switching their symbols as they move from one country to another? The Minister may not be able to answer that right away, but I would like an answer at some juncture, if possible.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a highly informative and fascinatingif also slightly scepticalspeech. At the end of it, he invited me to speak about semiotics and the difference between signs and symbols. Most of my university English degree seemed to be obsessed with Saussurian analysis of semiotics, and then when I arrived at theological college I had to discuss the hermeneutical circle for about three years.  [Interruption.] It is not that difficult to spell hermeneutical. I remember very clearly a Scottish theologian who taught at Oxford saying as part of his address on systematic theology and symbolism in religion that a lot of people ask, What do we mean by God? but we should really be asking, What do we mean by 'mean'? Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not return to the hermeneutical circle this afternoon. However, I would just say that on these issues I am closer to Urs von Balthasar and Coleridge than I am to Lacan.

John Hayes: What the whole House wants to know is: what does the Minister mean by what?

Chris Bryant: I am not sure the Minister understands what he means by mean or what in this particular circumstance, so let us move on to the issue of the cross and whether it could raise offence. The hon. Gentleman pointed to various different ways in which the cross can be interpreted but, of course, the possible interpretations depend on whether one is referring to the Cross with a capital C, which for many Christians is the Cross on which Jesus died. How that should be presented has been hotly disputed between Catholics and Protestants over the years; one dispute is about whether the symbol of a Cross should be used at all in churches. Therefore, the religious connotations that can be attachedand are attached by many peopleeither for good or ill can make it more difficult in certain, limited, circumstances for the Red Cross movement to be able to do its job. If that is the case, we need to have the additional symbols. For me, the fact that it is the Red Cross imparts an element of the concept of Christian charity to the work of the Red Cross, but I understand that others think of that in a pejorative sense, not a positive sense. They might also think of the child being baptised with the sign of the Cross and being told to fight valiantly for Christ against the devil. For many people, that is not a positive symbol. The hon. Gentleman also said that the Red Cross symbol is different from any other crosses as its arms and legs, as it were, are of equal length, but so are those of the cross of St. George and I do not think anybody doubts that the cross of St. George is a religious symbol.
	Let me clarify a couple of other matters. Several Members mentioned the issue of the red lion and sun and whether that is to be used only in Iran or only by Iran. The situation is that it is for Iranproperly speaking, it was for Persiato use, and it has not done so since 1980. I do not think other countries or peoples would want, or choose, to do so, so it is not a matter that arises in any case.

John Hayes: Would there be a purpose then in detaching the red lion from the protocol, or would it be better to just let it wither on the vine?

Chris Bryant: In my estimation, it would be an unnecessary row to have. It would also involve many other countries trying to agree a new protocol, and I cannot see that there would be any great value in that. It sits there and is not greatly used. It stemmed originally from 13th century Persian understandings, but it is not used.
	The other issue to which I should refer is the question of when this comes into effect. The original protocol makes it clear that it comes into effect when two countries have ratified. I have a list of those who have signed and ratified, and a separate list of those who have signed. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) asked me which countries are on the list, but I think that it would be unnecessary to read them out. I am happy to write to her so that she can compare notes. There is no greater requirement than two countries ratifying, so it has already come into operation.
	Without further ado

Malcolm Moss: rose

Chris Bryant: Well, apparently there will be further ado.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has not answered my question. If the answer is long in coming, perhaps he would undertake to write to me with an explanation. That would be satisfactory.

Chris Bryant: More to the point, the Minister cannot remember the question, so whether he would be able to remember the answer is quite another matter [ Interruption. ] I know that it related to schedule 7, and the hon. Gentleman referred to line 36, but I think that he meant line 36 on the first page of the schedule, because it has several line 36s. I will write to him at length on the issue, although I do not think that it will prevent him from supporting the clause. For the sake of the fullness of the debate, I will be happy to write to him. Without further ado, I shall now sit down.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	  
	Amendments of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: I hope that hon. Members, albeit in a slightly querulous and sceptical mode, will also support clause 2 standing part of the Bill. It will amend the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 to incorporate the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. The original Act has been used to protect operations maintaining or restoring international peace and security and operations in which an exceptional risk exists.
	It has been necessary to bring forward the optional protocol because there is a loophole: there are operations that are not maintaining or restoring international peace and security, but are peace building. They go beyond the stage of peacekeeping, but the Security Council has not determined that an exceptional risk exists. Consequently, the full protection afforded by the 1997 Act and the convention is not extended to those operations.
	First, we must amend UK law to give effect to the optional protocol, and that is what we are doing this afternoon. Next comes the process of ratification, whereby we lay down the optional protocol before Parliament, under the Ponsonby rule, and after 21 days it is considered to be ratified. We then lodge the instruments of ratification and accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
	In the previous debate, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) asked when the provision came into force. She was right to say that it comes into force when 22 countries have ratified and sent their instruments of ratification and accession to the Secretary-General. At the moment, there are 19 on the list, so when we add ourselves there will be 20. The countries involved include Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, the Central African Republic, Chile, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine and Uruguay.
	As I am sure hon. Members are aware, there are a large number of UN peacekeeping and peace-building missions around the world, from the presence in the middle east that started in 1948 to the mission in the Central African Republic and in Chad, which started only in 2008 when an EU mission handed over to the UN and where we are dealing with a lot of the knock-on effect from Darfur. In countries such as Burundi, the mission is a peace-building mission, as we have moved on from peacekeeping. It is important, none the less, that UN people who are working there have the full protection that would otherwise be afforded them.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend just read out a long list of countries, some of which I found very surprising. Mali, for one, has a Government who are trying to combat terrorism and is the recipient of help from the UN and other bodies. It is also where we have just seen the al-Qaeda murder of a British citizen. In a situation such as that in Afghanistan, where the mission is UN-led but has all manner of activities going on, including fighting and reconstructionoften in the same placehow does one distinguish between somebody who is classified as a UN worker and is therefore the recipient of protection under the terms of this amendment and others, and somebody who is a fighter and, presumably, not the recipient of the same protection, despite the fact that they are both being led by the UN on a clearly defined mission?

Chris Bryant: The protection is afforded to those who are directly involved in the UN peacekeeping mission and to those who are employed by direct agencies of the UN. It does not extend to further bodies. The truth is that in the various different missions around the world, the level of risk is differently estimated. We are keen to ensure that all the countries in which there are missions at present sign up. It is true that not all the countries where there are missions have so far signed up. That is why, although there will not be much immediate impact in the UKwe do not intend to have UN peacekeeping missions to the UK, so there is no direct likelihood of any such eventuality in this countryour ratification of the provision is part of the process of encouraging other countries to ratify that might otherwise be reluctant to do so. Obviously, that is true for countries as divergent as Liberia and Afghanistan. My right hon. Friend mentioned Afghanistan, where there was a UN assistance mission, which is now a political mission. The situation is similar in Ethiopia and Eritrea. It is good that Cyprus has now ratifiedthat is somewhere where there is a UN peacekeeping mission. Our aim is to create the universality of protection that he envisages.

David Lidington: If I heard him correctly, the Minister said a moment ago that not all countries with UN missions had yet signed up. However, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who is now a Minister of State at the Department of Health, said on Second Reading that
	five countries with UN missions in their territories
	I presume that she meant UN peace building missions
	have signed the protocol.[ Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 980.]
	I am not trying to trip up the Minister, but it would be helpful for the House to be clear about this. One question that I have raised previously about this part of the Bill has to do with the fact that the optional protocol does not define peace building in the way that earlier protocols defined peace making. That does not pose an immediate problem if those countries with peace-building missions have signed up already, but there could be a problem in the future when it comes to defining exactly what sort of UN activity is covered by the additional protection being given.

Chris Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I apologise if I inadvertently misled him. As I understand it, the five countries with peace-building missions have signed up, but if I am wrong I shall be happy to write to him. However, there are missions in 16 countries, and they obviously vary in their aims and the goals that they are intended to pursue. The point is that peacekeeping missions already have protection, whereas those missions involved in peace building that the Security Council has not said are at serious risk do not have protection. As the Security Council has never said that about any mission, it is clear that there is a legal loophole that the optional protocol is designed to tidy up.
	I have to correct an impression that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, and which has to do with the number of countries that have signed and ratified the optional protocol. Thirty-four countries have signed the optional protocol, and 18 have ratified it. That number will become 19 if we ratify it, and 22 countries have to do so for the optional protocol to come into force.

John Hayes: The Minister will be delighted to know that this will be my final intervention, but clause 2 deals with the optional protocol that extends the convention's authority to deal with humanitarian aid. However, as the right hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) suggested, it brings us back to the issue of protection, and to signs and symbols. Will the Minister buttonhole this once and for all? Surely a sign has a strictly limited meaning but a symbol, as Jung argued, is far more subtle. When we use a symbol, we imply or suggest all that lies behind it. Does the Minister agree that, when it comes to protection, that is critical? He is well qualified to answer that, as he is Jung at heart.

Chris Bryant: I think that I can match that. There is a very fine book called Jung and the Christian Way, written by a Christopher Bryantalthough not this one. The author is a different Christopher Bryant, but I have read the book and could expand at length about what it says about the collective subconscious and the rest, although I do not think that that would be strictly relevant to clause 2.
	However, I think that I can help the House by saying that the protocol covers UN personnel or contractors only. That means that UN peacekeepers are covered, but NATO troops are nota clear distinction, as the latter are not UN personnel.

Kim Howells: I am sorry to interrupt again on this point, but it is very important. I have been in some of the armpits of the world and have seen UN peace builders and keepers doing amazing work, but they have been able to do that work only because they have had NATO personnel guarding them. How does one differentiate a UN workerthey are clearly defined in the schedules and the original agreementsfrom NATO or other troops, without whose protection UN workers cannot work? How do we convince the enemyinsurgents, the Taliban or whoeverthat those workers are not there simply because they are being guarded and allowed to be there by troops who are not covered by these provisions?

Chris Bryant: I have not been to so many of the places to which my right hon. Friend refers; my own experience has been in places such as Bosnia, where the EU was doing its business of peace building. It is difficult to distinguish between peacekeeping and peace building, but after a while one realises that that is what one is definitely doing. Thus, processes such as going house to house to ensure that any rocket launchers left in people's garages are taken off them are all part of the process of peace building. Similarly, my right hon. Friend is right to say that people who want to prevent peace from taking hold may choose to interpret as part of the enemy anybody involved in a humanitarian effort and who is being protected by troops, but that does not mean that we should not ensure that they are afforded the protection that they need.
	I wish to correct myself on one issue relating to something that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said. The five countries where there are UN peace-building missions have signed, but I cannot be certain that they have ratified. It is difficult to tell whether or not that makes a material difference, but I shall write to him specifically on that point.

Jo Swinson: I want to follow up on who would be covered by this measure. I welcomed the fact that on Second Reading the Minister's predecessor said that
	we continue to press for a fuller set of protections.[ Official Report, 1 April 2009; Vol. 490, c. 980.]
	I say that because the other group of people who are not covered but who do an essential job of rebuilding countries and working in war zones are humanitarian workers for non-governmental organisations. They, too, face dreadful threatsas we saw, 2008 was one of the worst years for aid workers being killedso will the Minister repeat the assertion that the Government will continue to press for fuller protection?

Chris Bryant: Absolutely. The NGOs do an extraordinary job in many parts of the world, and they do work that could not be done by governmental organisations and agencies. They sometimes have that extra reach into the local community by definition of the fact that they are non-governmental, but if that means that they do not have the protection that they require, it makes it more difficult for them to do that job of work. There is often a judgment to be made on the ground as to how one best advances the process of peace and makes it flourish rather than just lie on stony ground. I wholeheartedly support the point that the hon. Lady makes. I hope that the whole House will support this clause, and I urge hon. Members to do so.

David Lidington: I am happy to offer my support for the clause, which is undoubtedly a welcome addition to the existing protocols and the protections conferred by them. My only difficulty is over what the protocol omits. I agreed with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) when she said that one would hope to see, at some future stage, this form of protection extended to humanitarian workers for NGOs. I am troubled by the absence in the protocol of a clear definition of peace building and by the opt-out that countries retain under subsection (4) in respect of operations
	to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance
	on their territories
	in response to natural disaster.
	I simply cannot understand the purpose of that opt-out arrangement.
	I am also concerned that the provisions in the Bill, resting as they do upon the protocol, appear to exclude from the additional protection regional peacekeeping operations and operations that, although authorised by the United Nations Security Council, are under either national or regional control, rather than direct United Nations control.
	I accept that the protocol is the product of prolonged international negotiationnegotiation that must have been difficult. It is better than no protocol at all, but I hope that the Government will show energy in pursuing further work and trying to ensure that the remaining loopholes are closed.

Jo Swinson: I support clause 2. Legal protection for UN personnel who are doing essential peace building and emergency humanitarian work is vital and, I would argue, long overdue. Those employees are working on behalf of the whole international community, but sadly they are under increased risk of attack and kidnap. In fact, according to Reuters, in 2008 some 122 people were killed in the course of aid work. That highlights the point that I raised earlier about the possibility of extending the protection further, beyond UN personnel.
	Sadly, even just in the short time that the Bill has been discussed in the Houses of Parliament, we have seen on the news the requirement for it. On Second Reading, the Gaza conflict was uppermost in people's minds, as a result of the attack on the UN school. Since then, of course, we have seen dreadful scenes unfold in Sri Lanka, where hospitals have come under fire from artillery shells, and a Red Cross worker is reported to have died. We still do not know the full scale of the damage, death and destruction. Obviously, legal protection alone will not solve the problem. We do not wave a magic wand by agreeing to the protocol, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a deterrent, and it does at least give us the opportunity to act in pursuit of justice where atrocities have been committed.
	As for applying the measures to the UK, obviously we hope and do not expect UN workers to come under attack in the UK. However, ratification would provide an international lead. It is good news that even since Second Reading two more countries have ratified; I note that  Hansard shows that 16 countries had ratified at the time. Hopefully we will make it 19, and that leaves just three more before the measures are brought into force. I urge the Minister and his Department to use all possible diplomacy, as I am sure they will, to encourage other countries to sign and ratify the protocols as soon as possible. With that, I reiterate my support for clause 2.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedule 1 agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Third Reading

Chris Bryant: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am not sure that I can add anything further to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon. We have ranged widely through matters hermeneutical and semiotical, and many other matters. I cannot remember whether it was Aristotle, Seneca or somebody else who said that a small book is always a bad book. The truth is that a small Bill need not be a bad Bill. This is a good piece of legislation, and I am sure that all hon. Members will support it on Third Reading; I am grateful to the officials who have worked hard to make sure of that. I am also grateful to all the previous Ministers who ensured that the issue was brought forward, through diplomatic circles. I hope that the red crystal, and the greater protection that we can afford to peacekeeping and peace-building operations around the world, will significantly enhance the opportunities for peace and justice in this world, and I urge people to support the Bill on Third Reading.

David Lidington: This is a welcome piece of legislation, which the Opposition are happy to support.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Opposition Day

[Un-alloted half-day]
	  
	Dissolution of Parliament

Angus Robertson: I beg to move,
	That this House requests the Prime Minister to seek a dissolution of the present Parliament.
	It is an honour to move the motion in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales. The case for the dissolution of the House of Commons is urgent, compelling and of greater importance than any party political interest.
	It is clear that the public believe that this Parliament is without legitimacy, credibility or trust. The expenses scandal is the most recent cause of this public concern, but there are other causes that have undermined faith in the political process, including the decision taking us into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq that was based on a lie. We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru believe it is only by demonstrating our trust in the people through an immediate general election that we can begin to rebuild trust in parliamentary democracy.
	Those who doubt the seriousness of the situation need to ask themselves how it has come to pass that fascists and neo-Nazis have been elected in the UK. I am certain that the good people of the north-west of England and of Yorkshire and the Humber are as horrified as the rest of us that holocaust deniers and anti-Semites now hold elected office. This aberration is a by-product of the crushing lack of credibility that affects the established UK political system at present.
	Although I welcome the Ministers responding to the debate and congratulate them on their continuing and new responsibilities, it is noted in sorrow that the Prime Minister has chosen yet again not to be present. We hear a lot from the bunker at No. 10 Downing street about the need to reconnect with Parliament, but when it comes to debates about whether the people should be trusted, the Prime Minister is not here. In contrast, we are making the case for a rebuilding of trust, and we are happy to let the people decide.
	It goes without saying that we in the SNP and Plaid Cymru wish the governance of our countries to take place from our national capitals, not the Palace of Westminster. Although I am certain we will secure further self-government shortly, this House of Commons will still play a role, in the short term at least, making laws over Scotland and Wales. So long as that is the case, we will demand the highest democratic standards in this place, as I am sure do Members in all parts of the House.

Russell Brown: The SNP Administration has been in Holyrood for just over two years. The fact is that in those two years this House has passed more legislation for the people of Scotland than the SNP Administration in Holyrood have.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes his point about a very successful and popular SNP Government in Scotland, but rather than get involved in a party political partisan ding-dong on these issues, I ask him and his hon. Friends to listen to the argument that I shall make, which is about the credibility of this House as a whole. It is not about the Government, in my view. The case that I shall make does not involve the Government or the Prime Minister.  [Interruption.] Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland would like to listen to that, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the Prime Minister is not here, and he also talks about the credibility of this House. That is at the very root of his motion, which I totally support and on which I congratulate him. Will he also note, however, that the Tory Benches are pretty empty right now? Perhaps that is because so many MPs have second jobs. If the House is dissolved, there will be an election, and at that election candidates should declare what proportion of their time will go to, and what proportion of their earnings will come from, this place rather than second jobs.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it is on the record, but I want to return to the point that I want to make. At this stage, we want to make it clear that the motion affects the whole Houseevery party and independents, too. It is not a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister or the Government, and that is why I appeal to Members from all parts of the House to support it.
	The evidence supporting the case for a general election is compelling, and the feedback that we have all heard on doorsteps throughout the country in the past few weeks has been overwhelming. It has been borne out in a series of recent, independent surveys. In  The Guardian on 22 May, a poll conducted by ICM showed that two thirds of voters now say that the Prime Minister should call a general election before the end of the year; that more than half of voters believe that the Prime Minister should go to the country before the process of constitutional change can begin; and that only 30 per cent. think that the election should be delayed until 2010.
	It is not just ICM and  The Guardian, however: PoliticsHome conducted a poll on 20 May showing that 70 per cent. of respondents want an election now or within a few short months; Populus showed something similar for ITV; YouGov showed something similar for  The Daily Telegraph at the end of May; and a YouGov poll for Channel 4 showed that 63 per cent. of respondents do not trust Members of this House of Commons much or at all.

Angus MacNeil: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members, who earlier this week wanted their own election in respect of the Prime Minister, should extend that courtesy to the rest of the country? If they want an election in the Labour party, they should make sure that the voters of the UK also have an election.

Angus Robertson: My hon. Friend gives an additional reason why there should be a general election. Many people throughout the country agree, and so do many Members from the governing party.

Chris Ruane: rose

Angus Robertson: Perhaps this is one such hon. Gentleman now.

Chris Ruane: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Scottish National party has form with this type of activity. In 1979, when you brought down a Labour Government, we had a Conservative Government

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just remind the hon. Gentleman about using the correct parliamentary term?

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman's party brought down a Labour Government, and that resulted in the Conservatives being in power for 18 years. Was that a good or a bad thing for the people of Scotland and Wales, let alone England?

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's history lesson; I was of course in primary 8 at that time.  [ Interruption. ] It is true. I have already made the point [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has clearly missed the point that I have been trying to make. This is a motion for the dissolution of Parliament; it is not a motion of no confidence in the Government or the Prime Minister. On that basis, I return to the point that I want to make. Sorry, before I do, I should have said that I was in primary 7 rather than primary 8, of course.
	I return to the issue of the public's view on whether there should be a general election. The BBC commissioned a poll by Ipsos MORI at the end of May, and 48 per cent. of respondents said they believed that half or more of MPs are corrupt. Asked whether they trusted MPs to tell the truth, 76 per cent. said that they did not and only 20 per cent. said that they did. The public tend to be more positive about their local MP than they do about MPs in general, which will be a relief to many of us. That was a finding in the BBC survey, but 85 per cent. of those surveyed want an independent judicial body to scrutinise MPs' affairs.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and also for clarifying the point that confused us about primary 8. Many of us rather suspected that he had been held back for a year.
	On the point about statistical evidence and listening on the doorstep, the hon. Gentleman's logic is that people should vote for people as long as they are not MPs, but, if two thirds of the country want to see a massive change, why did two thirds of the country sit on their hands last Thursday?

Angus Robertson: There are many reasons why people voted for all kinds of things. What I pointed out just now was that the overwhelming majority of public opinion is in favour of Parliament's being dissolved. That is one of the important reasons why we should vote for the motion.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point about the difference between how MPs are viewed locally and how the corporate body of politics is viewed nationally. Does he agree that although individual Members of Parliament have earned credibility and support in local communities by working in them, the great malaise to which he refers has come about because there has been a fracture in the relationship of trust between the people who elect us to this body and us as a corporate group?
	Does the hon. Gentleman not also feel it is important that we should have a transparent discussion about constitutional change? The Prime Minister of the UKnot the First Minister of Scotland, who is herealluded to some of that. We have a collective responsibility, beyond even what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, to try to make sure that we win that trust. That will take a lot of effort.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall come back to that point shortly; there is a job of work to be done on that important issue.
	I return to the BBC survey on public opinion on this important question. Some 62 per cent. of respondents said that they believed MPs put self-interest ahead of the country and their constituents. Only one in five, or 20 per cent., of the public is satisfied with how the Westminster Parliament is doing its job. The figures are damning and if we do not grasp the thorny nettle and deal with the issue, we will have a huge problem.
	The recent expenses scandal is the biggest single recent reason for the crisis of confidence, and we should put a lot of effort into getting it sorted. However, it comes after years of House of Commons prevarication and resistance to openness and transparency.  The Daily Telegraph revelations exposed a totally unacceptable state of affairs.
	The public are right to be very angry about the flipping of properties, the avoidance of capital gains tax and the claims for phantom mortgages. They rightly ask how it is that there appears to be one rule for the public and another for MPs who have been caught out. They also ask how a tainted Parliament with tainted Members can find a trusted, credible solution to the crisis.
	Of course it was right to do radical, immediate surgery. That has happened in a number of individual cases, and it has been approached by the different political parties that have finally grasped the nettle of transparency. At the recent meeting of party leaders called by Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that our parties have already committed to a higher standard of transparencynamely, that used in the Scottish Parliament. Years ago at Holyrood, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and others agreed to that better system. I suggested to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and others that we should simply emulate that system. They agreed and we are now on the right path with the plans that Parliament should publish our claims regularly. In the meantime, many MPs, myself included, have proactively put their details up for public access on our own websites.

Anne McGuire: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. One would think that he and his colleagues were a race apart in respect of the expenses difficulties that we face in this House. As well as taking the credit for putting his details on his website, will the hon. Gentleman accept some of the responsibility for the situation that we all face as parliamentarians? Also, will he advise the House that the Scottish Parliament had to go through its own expenses trauma before it got to its current situation? That was dealt with under a Labour and Liberal-led Administration.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Lady is right to suggest that under Presiding Officer George Reid the Scottish Parliament reformed the processes that were used, and all political parties were involved in that process. That was welcome then, and it is welcome now that the lessons have been learned. The record will show her that I have not held any party to be better or worse, in this debate or in any other. If she has evidence to the contrary, she can present it at any stage.
	Improving transparency has been the right thing to do, as has agreeing to a series of other measures, including the ending of flipping of second homes and introducing independent scrutiny of all second home claims by all MPs. It is in the public interest, and in the interests of many hard-working and honest parliamentarians in all parts of the House, that this process be accelerated. It is right that we set great store by the Kelly commission, which later this year will give independent recommendations on structural changes in allowances and expenses. It is also right that all party leaders have accepted the principle of an external Parliamentary Standards Authority. That means that regardless of which party is in office, we have a guarantee that the system overseeing MPs' and peers' conduct, including allowances and complaints, will be delegated from Parliament. That is a good thing and a huge step forward.

Jim Sheridan: The hon. Gentleman says regardless of which party is in office. Could he give us his valued opinion on which party would win a general election, Labour or the Tories?

Angus Robertson: I think it is up to the public to decide. The hon. Gentleman should be confident that all good MPs have an excellent chance of being re-elected, so no doubt he has nothing to fear from an early general election.

Brian H Donohoe: rose

Russell Brown: rose

Angus Robertson: I want to make some progress, as I have been generous to Members on both sides of the House.
	The case against a general election is completely undermined by the agreements between all the political parties and the tangible progress that has been made.

Brian H Donohoe: rose

Angus Robertson: I said that I am going to make progress, so I will.
	After all, the Kelly commission reports in the autumn, the Parliamentary Standards Authority proposal is still at the discussion stage, and all parties are signed up to these structural improvements. There is no reason why we cannot have an election; it would not delay a single thing. We should embrace the opportunity of an historic, reformist electionnot the poor second of yet another presentational relaunch of a tired Government. Let us imagine a general election campaign based on the various ideas for democratic reformthe ideas of the Prime Minister and of others, galvanising public interest and support, if that is what there were.
	Of course, we in the SNP and Plaid Cymru would argue for decision making closer to home, but we would also make the case for wholesale Westminster reform, such as electoral reform. One can imagine a Parliament properly reflecting the views of the peoplewith, of course, the necessary safeguards of a minimum electoral hurdle. How about a fully democratic Parliament, ending the grotesque farce of a Second Chamber in the self-styled mother of all Parliaments without any democratic mandate whatsoever? How about fixed-term Parliaments, ending the whip hand of the Executive over the democratic process? How about strengthening Parliament with stronger Committees, the proper scrutiny of legislation, and less curtailment of detailed oversight, ending the travesty of undebated amendments? How about a proper constitution? Those are all exciting ideas, some of which are supported in all parts of the House.

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is most gracious. Can I assume from what he has said that he will be supporting the Prime Minister in his plans to reorganise Parliament and to give more to the ordinary people? It would be nice to see him do that because our problem with him, as he knows, is that he is always voting with the Conservatives, and never with any other party.

Angus Robertson: This is a good stage at which to put on record the fact that halfway through the debate I will have to leave to meet the Secretary of State for Justice to discuss the Parliamentary Standards Authority, because there is all-party involvement in moving these proposals forward. No doubt some or most of those proposals would find support from other parties. Whichever party wins can then take them forward, and the reform process will have a mandate.
	The second argument that I have been hearing in opposition to a democratic election is that, because of the economic crisis, we somehow cannot let the public decide. If that is the case, how is it that the world's largest democracy, India, has managed a general election in recent months? How has the world's biggest economy, the United States, managed through an economic crisis with the historic election of Barack Obama, and how has the country with the closest parliamentary system to the UK's, Canada, similarly managed a general election in the middle of testing economic times? The list goes on and on. The argument against having a general election in testing economic times is just not credible.
	It is true to say, however, that we need an election to rebuild confidence in UK economic policy. Not only have this Government taken no responsibility for their role in our economic difficulties, but they are overseeing a catastrophic rise in unemployment. More than 200,000 people have been thrown on the dole in the past three months, and there is a forecast balance of payments deficit of 93 billion and a national debt expected to reach 1.6 trillion.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman is well liked in the House, and he is showing his customary charm, but may I say to him, first, that the United States and India have fixed-term Parliaments, so there is not a direct read-across? Secondly, at the risk of sounding like an over-anxious primary age child, I say to him that when the expression mother of Parliaments was first used in this very Chamber by John Bright, it referred specifically to England, not to Parliament. That may not sit comfortably with the hon. Gentleman, but it is accurate.

Angus Robertson: I am grateful for the history lesson, and we will be glad to return this Chamber to the good people of England so that it is their Parliament, while we make better decisions at home in Scotland. I see next to the hon. Gentleman his colleague from the Social Democratic and Labour party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who no doubt would also like to see a united Ireland making decisions for itself and no Northern Irish Members in this Chamber, but that is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide on.

Lembit �pik: rose

Angus Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to allow other Members to take part in this important debate.
	I return to the current economic challenges. It is of immense concern that under Labour, we now have a debt of more than 60,000 for every household in the UK. I remember election leaflets being put around stating, Don't vote SNP, it'll cost every family 5,000. Was it in the 1999 election campaign? [Hon. Members: It was 2007.] Oh, it was as recent as 2007. My goodness, how much more expensive it has been. There is now a 60,000 price tag for Labour's mismanagement of our economy.
	Of course, we have a Government, a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who dithered and delayed over Northern Rock, taking five months from the start of the run before eventually nationalising the bank.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson: I have already signalled that I want to make progress to allow other Members to get in. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, no doubt he will attempt to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We have a Government who delayed when the banking crisis started, refusing to guarantee sterling deposits across the banking system, and who took a year to get a banking Act on the statute book, but who even now have not introduced changes to the very banking regulations that led to many of the problems in the first place. We have a Government who failed to understand the impact on the poorest when they abolished the 10p rate of tax, who failed to act to temper the rise of fuel prices and whose VAT cut protected less than half the jobs that direct capital investment would have protected.
	That last point is vital. While the Prime Minister talks the talk of fiscal stimulus, he has failed to walk the walk. While President Obama is delivering a real fiscal stimulusa state such as Maryland, which is the same size as Scotland and larger than Wales, will have 2 billion of extra resources to spend in 2010this Government are planning to cut 1 billion from the Scottish budget.  [Interruption.] They are cutting 1 billion from public spending in Scotland and directly threatening 9,000 jobs.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May we conduct this debate in an orderly manner, please?

Angus Robertson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In truth, the Government's case against an election has nothing to do with the need to pursue parliamentary reform or manage the economy. It is pure, naked self-preservation in the wake of the worst electoral showing by the Labour party in 90 years.
	Labour Members of Parliament have been told by Government Whips that a vote for the motion or an abstention means the end of their careers. That is perhaps understandable for many in Scotland, where the SNP, a mid-term party of Government, were up 10 points on the last European elections, while the Labour party slumped and votes for the Tories, Liberal Democrats and the UK irrelevance party went down. The SNP won the Chancellor of the Exchequer's seat while Labour came third in the seat held by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The SNP won two thirds of all local authority areas in the country, including Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling, North Ayrshire, South Lanarkshirethe list goes on. Perhaps Lord Mandelson has been right to back the Prime Minister; after all, the latest polls show that it does not matter who is in charge of the Labour party. Today's ComRes poll shows that in Scotland the SNP would win an election against Labour, regardless of who is in charge.
	However, such partisan considerations should come second in the context of a profound crisis in democracy. We should all put trust in democracy before our own party interests. I therefore conclude with some words of cross-party consensus from another Member about the need to restore trust in politics. He said earlier today: In the midst of all the rancour and recriminations...let us seize the moment to lift our politics to a higher standard. In the midst of doubt, let us revive confidence. Let us also stand together because on this, at least, I think we all agreeBritain deserves a political system equal to the hopes and character of our people. Let us differ on policythat is inevitablebut let us stand together for integrity and democracy. That is now more essential than ever. The Prime Minister's fine words were correct, but they lacked the delivery mechanism, which is holding a general election. That is why we must dissolve Parliament and hold a general election. I commend the motion to the House.

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for praising the Prime Ministerwe can do much more of that in the debate. I also thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for his earlier welcome of my reinstatement as Secretary of StateI am grateful. I apologise to him and the House for having to rush off after I have spoken to get my seals of office. I have to stand the hon. Gentleman up for the Queen.
	I shall respond to the hon. Member for Moray shortly and urge hon. Members to reject the motion, which calls for a dissolution of Parliament. However, first, I want to ask why the motion is not in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. He calls for an immediate general election every time he gets out of bed and every time he goes on television. He has said virtually nothing for the past few weeks, except to demand an early election. So why does not he table the motion instead of trooping dutifully behind the nationalists? Is he just playing to the media gallery, as usual, because he knows that the House of Commons will not back him? Is it a case of bravery before the cameras, cowardice before Parliament?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider and withdraw that remark.

Peter Hain: I happily do soit was said in jest.
	The leader of the Conservative party is allowing the nationalists to do his work for him.

Robert Smith: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has followed the example of the Prime Minister. We have a debate in which the Prime Minister could have explained why he does not want an election, yet he has not bothered to turn up. He has sent a Minister who is not available for the whole debate. When we have a three-hour debate in the Chamber, the least the Government can do is find a Minister who can be here for it.

Peter Hain: Where is the leader of the Liberal Democrats? Where is the leader of the Conservative party? I see that the leader of the SNP has dutifully travelled down to do the Tories' work for them, as he so often does.
	Plaid Cymru and the SNP are the Tories' little helpers. In 1979, the SNP voted to destroy a Labour Government and usher in 18 years of miserable Tory rule. In the European elections, voting Plaid Cymru allowed the Tories to top the poll in Walesalbeit on a pitiful vote of just over 6 per cent. of the electorate. Voting SNP will allow the Tories to get in at Westminster.

Elfyn Llwyd: Not that it matters a great dealalthough the right hon. Gentleman has apologised once to the House, a few seconds agobut just to be accurate, he said that Plaid Cymru voted to bring down the Labour Government. We did not.

Peter Hain: Actually, I did not say that at all. I said that the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down the Government in 1979. However, let me remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we remember well that Plaid Cymru came to the rescue of the besieged Conservative Government under John Major, by doing a grubby deal in 1993.

Simon Burns: Talking about grubby deals, does the right hon. Gentleman remember that in 1979 the Labour Government did a grubby deal with Plaid Cymru to secure their votes and to try to cling to office?

Peter Hain: Actually, it was an honourable deal, concerning quarrymen in north Wales as I recall. We were happy to do what we did, which was in their interests.

Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: In a moment. The SNPthe hon. Gentleman's partyhas a history of seeking to inflict a Tory Government on Scotland. It did that in 1979 and it is trying to do it again now. The SNP's real agenda is not about an election; it is about wanting to get a Tory Government in Britain to undermine Scotland's link with the rest of Britain. The SNP would love to have a Tory Government in Westminster, inflicting mass unemployment, education cuts and hospital closures in Scotland again, so that it could try to ride a wave of revulsion towards independence for Scotland.

Pete Wishart: I agree with the Secretary of State: the last thing that Scotland needs is a Conservative Government. We remember all too well the scorched earth policies and being the testing ground for the poll tax, but does he not agree that the reason that we will get a Conservative Government in Scotland is the failure and futility of his Labour Government?

Peter Hain: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that he prefers a Labour Government?  [ Interruption. ] That is very interesting. So, as far as he is concerned, he does not mind a Conservative Government in Westminster.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: Let me make some progress. We now have the hon. Gentleman on the record as being indifferent to a Tory Government, and the people of Scotland will note that.
	People who back the nationalists get the Tories on their coat tails, just as the Tories are on the nationalists' coat tails in voting for today's motion. That is what the nationalists are: tartan Tories in Scotland and daffodil Tories in Westminster.

Hywel Williams: rose

Peter Hain: I give way to a daffodil Tory in Westminster.

Hywel Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, but we need to respect history. We had Tory Governments throughout the '80s and '90s not because of the actions of the nationalist parties, but because the Labour party lost the electionand then lost and lost and lost. That is the Labour party's responsibility, not ours.

Peter Hain: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but it was his nationalist colleagues in Scotland who helped to bring down the Labour Government, which paved the way for a Tory Government.

James McGovern: I agree with the Secretary of State's comments about what happened in 1979. The people of Scotland have good memories and they will never forgive the separatists of the SNP for what happened in 1979, which was an unmitigated disaster for the people of Scotland. I am sure that the Secretary of State will remember that, following 1979, the SNPthe separatistswere dubbed the tartan Tories by the people of Scotland. Is he also aware that, given that the official Opposition are totally devoid of any policies at the moment, the people of Scotland currently dub the separatists of the SNP the political wing of the Conservative and Unionist party?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend puts the case very eloquently, and I have to agree with him. Here are the tartan Tories, at it again today, siding with the Conservatives to achieve their objectives. People who back the nationalists get the Tories on their coat tails.

Adam Price: How can the Secretary of State have the gall to accuse our parties of being Tories when on virtually every major issue of the past 12 yearswhether the Iraq war or the privatisation of Royal Mailour parties have been to the left of his?

Peter Hain: What about the minimum wage [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Members have a right to be heard.

Peter Hain: What about the statutory minimum wage? I do not remember massive support for that from the nationalists.
	To dissolve Parliament now would be to walk away from the necessity for the reform that voters are demanding, as the hon. Member for Moray rightly said, and that we are delivering in the form set out by the Prime Minister earlier today. I heard the hon. Gentleman waxing lyricaland being very persuasiveabout the need for democratic reform. Virtually every one of the proposals that he advocated was enunciated from this Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister a few hours ago.
	To dissolve Parliament now would be to turn our backs on the British people in their time of economic need and insecurity. Neither of the two great challenges that we facethe political challenge and the economic challengewould be solved by an election. Playing with parliamentary motions might be a priority for Opposition parties. Cleaning up politics and getting the country back to work is Labour's priority.

Richard Shepherd: Does the Secretary of State not believe that a Labour victory in a general election would clearly reinforce the strength and competence of the Government to address the issues that confront this nation? Is that not a case for holding an election now?

Peter Hain: When the time comes to call an election, we will indeed get a renewed mandate to take the country forward and to meet the challenges of the future. That will be the choice that is put before the British people at that point. They would not forgive us, however, for abandoning the job of implementing parliamentary reform and economic recovery now. They want the Government to sort things out; they want us to do it quickly, and then, and only then, to call a general election. There will be one soon enoughwithin a yearand only then will it be right to go to the country and ask who should take us forward to the future, once we have addressed the pressing concerns of today.

Stewart Hosie: The Secretary of State says that these things need to be done quickly, and I entirely agree with him. So why, after 12 years, have we still not got a fully elected House of Lords and a proper democratic system for this Chamber? This is expediency on the part of the Government; they are not taking decisive action. Their argument is facile beyond belief.

Peter Hain: The reason that we have not been able to get our reform through the House of Lords is that the House of Lords blocked it. Labour has only about 30 per cent. of the votes in the House of Lords, and the Conservative partydespite now advocating a policy of an elected second Chambercannot deliver its own peers in the House of Lords in such a vote. Sooner rather than later, however, we will put that question to the House of Lords, and we will hope to carry the House with us in getting full reform for a democratic second Chamber.
	Meanwhile, there is a lot to do. Of course the European elections were terrible for the Labour party. But, far more significantly, they were an alarm call for all the parties, and for parliamentary democracy itself. For every party, a low turnout at elections is the clearest sign that the British people are not engaged with the political process. That is our fault, not theirs. We seem obsessed with procedure and tribal party politicsas we can see this afternoonand now the public also think that MPs are all in it for our own ends.
	If this motion were carried and Parliament were dissolved, all that the poll would amount to would be another referendum on MPs' expenses. The low turnout and the rising support for fringe and extreme parties show us one thing: that people used their vote last Thursday to protest, not on the finer points of European policy, but on the story of the dayindeed, the story of every single one of the past 30 days: MPs' expenses.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way on a point on which the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would not give way. I want to ask my right hon. Friend a simple question. Does he honestly believe that, if the motion were successful and there were to be a general election in the coming weeks, the question of Members' expenses would go away? Would it not stay with us for the following four years as well? Would not  The Daily Telegraph and all the other newspapers revisit the issue and find some other reason to print the same story?

Peter Hain: I could not agree more, which is why we need to lance the boil now, and why we need this Parliament, on a cross-party basis, to sort this out here and now. Then, within a year, we can have an election to decide who should take the country forwardnot how we should reform parliamentary expenses, because that will have been done, but who should take us forward to meet the big challenges of the global economic crisis, of climate change and all the other issues before us.

Lembit �pik: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what has effectively happened, in summary, is that the general public and the media have become obsessed with the process of politics rather than the outcomes that we are meant to create, part of which is our own fault? The people of Montgomeryshire are less interested in process than in getting out of this recession, so if we are not to have an election, will he explain how he envisages the Government responding in the months ahead to the need of the citizens of Montgomeryshire and across the country for outcomes to make their lives better, their jobs more secure and to reduce the sort of social tensions that led to the reaction we saw in the European elections last week?

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman that the media are far too obsessed, almost to the exclusion of all else, with process. It is process, process, process rather than substance, substance, substance. That is why we will carry on with delivering our policies to get the housing market going again, to build more social housing, to tackle the lack of confidence in business and to ensure that business is supported so that we can recover from this economic crisis brought about by the global financial collapse and move the country forward. Then there will be a choicea very clear choiceat the next general election.
	We do not need a referendum on expenses because we have just had one. We were all given a real kicking by the voters and we understand the message: Clean up, shape up, get on with the business of Government and come back to us when the problem is fixed. Where the Opposition parties posture, we deliver. We are determined to take the necessary action, not to walk away.
	Just imagine what might happen to the economy if Parliament were dissolved and we had an election. In the middle of probably the worst financial crisis the world has faced in living memory, Britain would face weeks and weeks of instability and uncertaintyjust when there are reports of rising consumer confidence, just when business surveys show the pace of decline is slowing, just when mortgage approvals have risen for the third month in a row and just when the poison infecting our banks has been stemmed. Why, just at this critical moment when the global economy is still volatile, do the nationalists want to trigger instability in the markets and in the British economy?
	Let us imagine for a moment pursuing this nationalist-Tory alternative. We dissolve Parliament, then spend the next three weeks fighting each other rather than the global crisis, and the nationalists do not have a clue what to do about it. The hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), who rather fancies himself as an economist, praised Iceland as an inspirational model. No sooner had he done so than its economy imploded, while his other small country model, Ireland, has sadly had its own serious difficulties, yet Plaid lauded both Iceland and Ireland as an arc of prosperity.
	As for the Tories, the real reason they want an election now is that they cannot go on for ever dodging the questions. They have no policies at all except for multi-billion pound cuts in public investment.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I will give way in a few moments.
	It is good to see that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has found time from his millionaire speaking and consultancy contracts to be with us today. He has a vivacious Welsh wife, but sadly she has not managed to educate him politically. He opposed the minimum wage, which has benefited millions of workers throughout Britain. He opposed the social chapter, referring to
	minimum wages, social chapters and all the other job-destroying nonsense.[ Official Report, 20 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 606.]
	He said that the National Assembly for Wales would be
	nothing more than a talking shop and a terrible waste of money.
	Does he still hold those views? Should he not now apologise to the shadow Welsh Secretary for landing her right in it?
	When the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales, at least he learned the national anthemindeed, his rehearsing it led to him marrying his private secretarybut he blocked billions of pounds of objective 1 and convergence funding for Wales, which a Labour Government subsequently delivered. He is now part of an Opposition who want to implement billion-pound cuts that would decimate those very European programmes right across Wales.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State's speech is another good argument for an early dissolution. He is obviously out of practice. If Plaid Cymru has nothing to contribute in terms of the economic crisis, why did his party agree to form a coalition with us, and why is the leader of my party, the Minister for the Economy and Transport, coming up with the ProAct wage subsidy scheme, which the Secretary of State has himself praised and described as an innovative scheme that should be copied here?

Peter Hain: If we are talking politics and government in Cardiff Bay as opposed to politics and government in the House of Commons, why did the hon. Gentleman's party chase after the Conservatives in the desperate search for a coalition before Labour helped it out and got it into government?
	On the Today programme this morning, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, let slip that
	that does mean over three years after 2011 a 10 per cent. reduction in the departmental expenditure limits for other departments. It is a very tough spending requirement.
	Yes, the demand from the Tories is very tough. A 10 per cent. cut would be an utter disaster for housing policing, business support, defence and many other public services. A 10 per cent. cut would amount to cuts of 50 billion across the United Kingdom, 600 million in Wales, and 1.2 billion in Scotland.
	The Tory mask is slipping. The Tories want people to vote soon, before the truth is out. They have no positive solutions to the financial crisis, just opportunist spin on the economy today followed by savage cuts to public services tomorrowcuts made almost with relish, gleefully. The Tories would use the financial crisis as an excuse to do what they have always wanted to do: cut, cut and cut again.

Stewart Hosie: The Secretary of State is absolutely right: making savage cuts in the teeth of a recession is the wrong thing to do. He will therefore criticise his own Chancellor and the Treasury for the 500 million worth of cuts that will be heading Scotland's way next year in the teeth of a recession.

Peter Hain: Is this not curious? The Scottish Government have never had more money than they have now. Their budget, like that of the Welsh Assembly Government, has more than doubled since we came to power in 1997.
	What is the real nationalist agenda? Why would the nationalists dissolve this Parliament today? It would not just be for the purpose of an immediate election; they would dissolve this Parliament for ever. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear! There we are. They are cheering the idea. If they were frank, they would admit that they would break up the United Kingdom, cutting off Wales and Scotland from the main markets, population centres, wealth and international influence of the United Kingdom.

Alex Salmond: He is talking sense at last.

Peter Hain: That is the sense that the people of Scotland will reject: cutting Scotland's links with the United Kingdom, just as Plaid Cymru would cut Wales off from the great benefits of sheltering under the umbrella of the United Kingdom and making us all stronger together.

Alex Salmond: Given that the Secretary of State's colleagues in the Labour party in Scotland have been deploying these arguments for yearsand, I am sure, deployed them in the European election campaignto what does he attribute the judgment of the people of Scotland in increasing the SNP vote by 10 per cent. in mid-term, and last week's resounding endorsement of the SNP Government in Scotland?

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of a resounding endorsement, but I believe that the SNP received less than a third of the vote on a tiny turnout. Labour voters, for reasons that I have explained, stayed at home in their hundreds of thousands.

Madeleine Moon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that people listening to this debate will be appalled by the petty discussions about which party's votes have increased by what percentage? What concerns the people of this country, and certainly the people of Wales [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Madeleine Moon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	What concerns the people of Wales and the people of this country is the memory of being told to get on their bikes and find workof hunt the job. They remember money being sent from Wales to Westminster when it could have been invested in Wales. They remember schools falling apart, and education waiting lists. That is what people want us to discuss here, not whether another party has increased its voting share by 1 per cent. Nobody cares about that; they care about their lives.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes that point extremely persuasively, and it reminds me that when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was Secretary of State for Wales he endorsed the policy of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), in sending money back from Wales to the Treasury, which we then had to reverse by more than doubling the budget for Wales since we came to power. If the nationalists were successful in wrenching Wales and Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, that would leave Wales with a 9 billion deficit in public finances, and the figure for Scotland would be about 10 billion.
	The SNP Administration at Holyrood are propped up by the Tories. Tory votes in the Scottish Parliament supported the SNP's budget of cuts, and the quid pro quo is that the SNP in Westminster does the Tories' bidding. People in Scotland whose communities still bear the scars of Thatcherism did not thank the SNP in 1979, and they will not do so now.
	Let me make this plain: the Tories and the nationalists would turn their backs on the British people and walk away together. They would dissolve this Parliament because they hope it would suit their short-term political ends. Only Labour will stay the course to do the hard work, to reform, and to give real help to the British people. They can dissolve if they want to; this Government are not for dissolving. We are standing firm, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

William Hague: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales; to hold that office is one of the greatest honours that life can bring, and to hold it twice is a piece of great good fortune. He said that I had in the past somehow landed the current shadow Welsh Secretary in it, but I can assure him that, the Conservatives having won in Wales for the first time in 90 years, she does not feel very landed in it at the moment. He should hope to be landed in it in a similar way in future elections. Such a description was therefore not very appropriate, and nor was deriding any other party for getting about a third of the vote when there was no region or nation of the United Kingdom in which his Government received a third of the vote last week, only two in which they received a quarter of the vote, some in which they did not get a fifth of the vote, and some in which the governing party of this country did not get a tenth of the vote.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on moving the motion, which, it will be no surprise to discover, the official Opposition can readily support. The crux of the question is simple. By common consent across all parts of the House, our country faces enormous challenges. Members of all parties are familiar with them: the challenge of restoring the health of an economy battered by recession and high debt levels; the ever-present challenge of improving public services; the challenge of reducing violent crime and of improving national security at a time of international terrorism; and the challenge of restoring faith in our political system after scandals and revelations that have hit this House hard, and rebuilding respect and confidence in our democracy itself.
	The question before us is whether these tasks and challenges are best faced for the next 10 or 11 months by the current Parliament, now in its twilight year, with a large and growing number of right hon. and hon. Members leaving its ranks, burdened with a serious loss of its reputation, with a minimal and diminishing opportunity to pass fresh legislation, with many decisions on hold and with a visibly divided Government, or whether they are better faced by a new Parliament, with new Members and renewed energy, with the expectation of several years of work before it, with a mandate approved by the people of the country, and with the authority that comes from demonstrable popular approval in a democracysomething that the current Government have forfeited and the Government of the current Prime Minister have neither sought nor ever received. One only has to ask the question to see that to most people in this country there is a clear and emphatic answer.
	The Prime Minister's statement to the House earlier was peppered with references to legitimacy, accountability, democracy and engagement, but it never seems to occur to him that one way to bring about those characteristics for any Government is to consult the 44 million voters of this country and let them have their say. He has set up a national democratic renewal council, which turns out to be a Cabinet committee behind closed doors with a title so risible in its grandiose pomposity that it shows a complete lack of self-awareness of the ridicule with which the nation views the Government.
	How can we inject vigour, energy and freshness into political debate better than by consulting the people of the country? It is apparent beyond argument that the majority of the people, who are genuinely no fans of holding elections unnecessarily, believe that they now have the right to give their own verdict. Every survey shows it, and every time any of us walk down the street we hear it. Some people feel let down by their elected representatives and wish to have their say. Many can sense, with the sure instinct of the British people, that a crucial decision point is coming and that there is no reason to delay.
	Perhaps even more have been watching a bitter battle take place within the governing party about whether one unelected Prime Minister should be replaced with another one. It is not surprising that they should feel that the question of who leads our country is not the private preserve of a dysfunctional Government at the tail end of a Parliament, but a matter for the collective judgment of the nation.

Tony Wright: The right hon. Gentleman is a considerable historian. Can he tell us of just one historical occasion on which a Government with a secure majority have called a general election simply because the Opposition have asked for one?

William Hague: There are many cases in history when Governments have called general elections because they wish to seek a mandate for whatever policies they were putting to the country long before the expiry of a Parliament [ Interruption. ] I refer the hon. Gentleman to Baldwin in 1923, before the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), says that it was not a Tory Government. Indeed, many Governments in the 1950s and the 1980s sought re-election before the end of the Parliament, and on some of those occasions, the Opposition were asking for an electioncertainly they were in 1923. If the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has any further historical inquiries, I hope that he will make them.
	While the question of the dissolution of Parliament cannot simply be settled by reference to public demand, it has to be accepted by any commentator or participant in our politics that the current circumstances of this Parliament, already in its final year, are without precedent in modern times. Not only is public faith in this House at its lowest possibly at any time since the late 18th century and the mail franking scandala historical reference for the hon. Gentlemanbut public support for the Government is, by reference to any of the widespread elections held last week, the lowest by some distance for any incumbent Government at any point in our modern democratic history. Such a combination means that this Parliament lacks the authority to embark on new and substantial programmes of policy or reform, even if it had time or if the Government had the energy, purpose or vision.
	Vision, of course, was the crucial ingredient promised by the Prime Minister when he suddenly called off the general election planned in the autumn of 2007. He said that he would not call an election so that he could set out his vision. Curiously, he then forgot to do so. Indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)a former Labour Ministerhas pointed that out. In her letter last week, she wrote that
	the vision has not materialised.
	She added that the people
	look to the government for high quality public services, and a sense of purpose and direction for the country. The prime minister has to articulate that and, sadly, it hasn't happened.
	That is what Labour Members think.
	Then the reason not to have an election was to set out the vision. Now the reason memorably given by the Prime Minister in his interview a month ago on GMTV is that an election would cause chaos. That revealing insight into the bunker-like mentality of No. 10 Downing street is a further argument that the people in the country should have their say. The Prime Minister feared chaos at the ballot box, presumably in place of the well-ordered conduct of government that we have witnessed in recent weeks. The Home Secretary resigned on Tuesday, the Communities and Local Government Secretary on Wednesday, and the Work and Pensions Secretary on Thursday. Downing street worked for 48 hours, through the night, to save the Prime Minister from being overthrown by his Cabinet. What a relief it is that there was no chaos in this country in the last couple of weeks.
	The argument against holding an election on the grounds of chaos possesses three shattering weaknesses. First, it can presumably be used at any time and could be used to justify never asking the people to go to the polls for fear of the chaotic consequences that they might haplessly bring down on themselves. It is an argument of which Ceausescu would have been proud, as he pathetically waved from the balcony at the tens of thousands who had come to remove him.
	Secondly, such an argument shows a patronising misreading of the people of this country, who have never in recent times produced chaotic scenes in a general election and have seldom produced a chaotic result. The Prime Minister can rest assured that they will go about their democratic duty when they get the chance without any trace of chaos, but with a quiet and determined efficiency.
	Thirdly, it is a comment that says little for those countries that have recently had a full-scale general election, even in the midst of a world economic recession. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) pointed out that some of them had fixed-term Parliaments, but they still managed to conduct their elections in the middle of that recession. They include among their number no less a country than India, the world's largest and most complex democracy, where a respected Government won the authority and increased freedom of manoeuvre that came from a renewal of their mandate. The United States of America is the world's most powerful democracy, in which elections produced a renewal and reinvigoration of national leadership on an utterly historic scale. The people of India and America managed to have their elections in a perfectly orderly way, and after campaigns that were far longer than a general election campaign in this country, but the Prime Minister believes that an election in this countryfrom which those countries derive so many of their proud democratic traditionswould be impossibly chaotic. What does that say about his view of Britain and the British people? It is yet further proof that he is incapable of trusting the people of Britain.
	To be fair to the Secretary of State, his loyalty to the Prime Minister does not extend to adopting the nonsensical arguments against an election employed by the Prime Minister. The gist of the Secretary of State's argument was that Parliament has important work to do and that on parliamentary standards and the economy, only this Parliament can clear up its own mess. That, of course, is not remotely true. In each case, the decisions that are to be made are so serious and public approval for them so essential that they would be far better carried out after all the debate, explanation, discussion and transparency that only a general election can bring.
	The Government's argument is that it is impossible to interrupt proceedings for even a month for a general election, but that we can interrupt them for nearly three months for the summer recess. If Parliament is engaged in such important work at the moment, why is there so little business before the House of Commons this month? Why have a last Session of Parliament, beginning this autumn, that can be only a few months in length? If we work it out, we see that perhaps a maximum of 14 weeks might be available in which legislation can be considered. What has happened to the important legislation that was going through Parliament in this Session, some of which has mysteriously disappearednamely, the Bill to allow part-privatisation of the Royal Mail?
	Lord Mandelson, whom I believe we must now deferentially refer to as the First Secretary of State, has said of the Postal Services Bill:
	It would be irresponsible of the Government to allow delays to the...measures needed to reform Royal Mail and secure the future of the universal postal service...Any delay would merely serve to threaten the sustainability of the network.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2009; Vol. 710, c. 848.]
	The Government's case against the dissolution of Parliament would be much stronger if they even knew whether and when they want to proceed with a measure that they have said can stand no delay and that is meant to be before Parliament now.
	In mentioning Lord Mandelson, I did not mean to send a chill down the spine of Ministers, but it is now impossible to discuss the operation of government or Parliament without reference to his opinions. The unelected Prime Minister has managed to produce the most powerful unelected deputy since Henry VIII appointed Cardinal Wolseyexcept that Cardinal Wolsey was more sensitive in his handling of colleagues than the noble Lord Mandelson is. His personal retinue of 11 Ministers, six of whom attend on him in the House of Lords, is the largest in the Government. The growth of the unelected portion of Her Majesty's Government is further evidence of the need for the dissolution of Parliament. We also need the fresh air of electoral competition to blow through the dark recesses of several Departments.
	The Prime Minister who lectures us all on democratic renewal is appointing peers to positions of power on a scale unknown for decades. There are now more peers attending the Cabinet than at any time since the days of Harold Macmillan. Half the Ministers in the Foreign Office now sit in the House of Lords or are about to do so, including no less a figure than the new Minister for Europe. So after years in which hon. Members in all parts of the House have called for better democratic scrutiny of EU decision making, we have arrived at a situation where elected Members of Parliament will be unable to question the Minister for Europe at all and where, a week before an important EU summit, the Minister is not available to either House of Parliament. That is not democratic renewal, but democratic reversal by the Prime Minister.
	The Prime Minister who told us today about the importance of accountability and legitimacy has just managed to appoint an enterprise tsar in Sir Alan Sugar, but no one seems to know whether he will have Government machinery reporting to him. Apparently, moreover, he, too, cannot be questioned in either House of Parliament at all.
	The Lord Mandelson, denied the opportunity to become Foreign Secretary by the sad combination of a Prime Minister too weak to remove his Foreign Secretary and, equally, a Foreign Secretary too weak to challenge the Prime Minister, has gone around instead collecting titles and even whole Departments to add to his name. His title now adds up to, The right hon. the Baron Mandelson of Foy in the county of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the county of Durham, First Secretary of State, Lord President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. It would be no surprise to wake up in the morning and find that he had become an archbishop [Laughter]. That is exactly what happened with Cardinal Wolsey.
	We are left with a Government held together solely by fear. The Prime Minister is unable to remove Ministers in whom he has lost faith, for fear that they will quit altogether; Ministers are unwilling to challenge a Prime Minister in whom they have lost faith, for fear that they will no longer be Ministers; Labour Back Benchers are unwilling to remove a Prime Minister in whom they have certainly lost faith, for fear of having to have an electionand all of them are living in fear of one Minister with a very long title for whom, at the last election, no one in the country ever voted at all.
	That is the situation. The Government are locked together in an embrace of mutual terror and diminished legitimacy, but their refusal to face the voters can no longer be defended. There comes a point when democratic renewal is indeed necessary, and the country knows and understands that that is now.
	The Prime Minister has made a statement today on constitutional reform in an effort to justify his continuation in office. Leave aside the transparent desperation and sheer unadulterated cynicism of looking to a referendum on voting reform only when he has seemingly lost hope of retaining power under the voting rules prevailing today, the fact that the referendum on the European constitution that he promised in the last general election manifesto has never been held at all and the fact that progress on House of Lords reform has been stymied by indecision or indifference during his term of office so far, whatever the history of these proposals and whatever their merits, a Prime Minister at this stage of a Parliament can command the real authority to implement such changes only by including them in a general election manifesto and asking the country to approve them. But the Prime Minister's objective is not to strengthen constitutional change by winning a mandate for it in a general election. Instead, it is to avert a general election by coming up with proposals for constitutional changethe exact reverse of true democratic accountability and legitimacy in government.
	No set of proposals can now overcome the fact that this is a Parliament that has lost its moral authority, and that the Government derived from that Parliament have lost the unity, authority and confidence to govern in the national interest. The events of the last eight days, in which 11 Ministers have resigned from the Government, have summed up for most voters the sense of decay and division that makes them want to be consulted about the future.
	The words of resigning Ministers speak for themselvesthey require no embellishment by the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) said:
	I have been unhappy about smears against colleagues, the undermining of colleagues and friends by No. 10.
	The right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) said to the Prime Minister:
	I am calling on you to stand aside to give our party a fighting chance of winning.
	The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said:
	Several of the women attending Cabinet...have been treated by you as little more than female window dressing...you have strained every sinew of...loyalty.
	The hon. Member for Northampton, North, whom I cited earlier, has said that
	the person at the top has to forge a group of strong politicians into a united, coherent team to provide stable government. And that has, painfully, not happened either.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said:
	Even I didn't think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.
	The quotes go on, and they come from Labour Members. It is not necessary to read them all outit is almost impossible to do so in the time available. It is impossible to recall, even from the dark and dying days of other Administrations, such condemnation of a Government from within their own ranks.

Denis MacShane: rose

William Hague: I have almost concluded, but we must have the entertainment of listening to the right hon. Gentleman.

Denis MacShane: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose family of course come from my constituency. He can tell wonderful jokes about Lord MandelsonI wish he could tell more, because we all love laughing at thembut what is the point of this speech? Why have the Opposition not tabled this motion? Why are they coming in on the coat tails of the Scottish nationalists?

William Hague: First, I think that the right hon. Gentleman was not just laughing at my joke about Lord Mandelson; he was laughing with it. That is sad news for him, because it means what has in fact already been reflected in the reshuffle: however desperate the Government have been to find new Ministers, they have sadly not turned to him. That is most unfortunate.

Betty Williams: rose

William Hague: I am not going to give way any more, because I am nearly at the end of my speech. [Hon. Members: Go on!] Well, the hon. Lady is so charming that I shall do so.

Betty Williams: I was worried for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of the Member for Conwy. I have sat quietly listening to his speech. I was not going to stand up, but then he said that he was coming to the end of it. All I have heard for the past 15 minutes or so is character assassination; I have heard nothing at all about policies. I also listened to the chorus of the boys' club on the Opposition Benches without hearing a single word about policies and why we should call a general election. Does he agree with the boys' club chorus from the nationalists? If we call a general election and there is a change of Government, do they think that Wales and Scotland will be immune from the global economic situation in which the UK finds itself? Could he comment on that single policy?

William Hague: I assure the hon. Lady that I am not afraid of any lady from Wales except my mother-in-law, so she need not worry about that. Secondly, I have not indulged in any character assassination; Lord Mandelson will be most flattered by what I have said about him todayI am simply helping to build him up. Thirdly, both the hon. Member for Moray and I have made the strong and serious case that national democratic renewalthe phrase that constantly trips from the tongue of the Prime Ministercan be achieved only by the renewal of a mandate or the renewal of an authority of Parliament across the range of policies in order to deal with the challenges of the world and national economic situation, of trying to improve public services and of safeguarding national security. It has been the burden of my case from the beginning of my remarks that dealing with those things effectively requires a Parliament with the energy and new authority from the people to carry out whichever policies the people of this country wish to follow.
	So as the Prime Minister presides over his national democratic renewal council, let him reflect that the answer to this country's problems and the unprecedented contempt in which our politics is held cannot lie in another committee led by him. If committees led by the Prime Minister did any good, the country would not be in this mess and the Labour party would not be at its most unpopular since the first world war. What this country needs is a real democratic renewal in which every one of its citizens can take part; a committee with the broadest membership possibleone to include the entire nation; and a long-established tradition called a general election. Such an election is open to all, everyone in the country gets to have their say and at the end of the process our democracy is strengthened and renewed. That is what the country wants, that is what our democracy needs and that is why we will vote this evening for the motion calling for this Parliament to be dissolved and the people of Britain to decide their own future.

Tony Wright: In the first part of the debate, I thought that I had intruded on some sort of private feud. It has now become much more fun, and I hugely enjoyed the speech made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I shall be brief, and I am sorry to inject a note of realism into our proceedings. I tried to do so when I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could tell me of all the occasions on which Governments had called elections because Oppositions had asked for them. Of course, there have been no such occasions.

Julian Lewis: rose

Tony Wright: I will not give way for the moment, although I shall do so later.
	There are two problems with what is proposed. One is that it is dishonest, and the other is that it is dangerous. I am sorry to be rather serious about the matter, but I want to be serious. The proposal is dishonest because the proposers of the motion know that what they request will not happen. It is dishonest because it is part of the game that we play, and the game that we play contributes greatly to the regard in which we are held outside this place.
	There is a constitutional illiteracy even in believing that if a party changes its leader between elections, there should be an election. We do not have a presidential system; we have a party system in which parties present themselves to the electorate periodically. Some of the arguments that we have heard in recent times have been preposterous. The fact is that Governments with secure majorities do not call elections other than when they want to.

Julian Lewis: I seem to remember that in both 1983 and 1987 Governments with healthy Conservative majorities called an election a year earlier than they needed to. The hon. Gentleman may say that the Opposition did not ask for an election at those times, but if they did not, it was probably only because they knew that, as the Government were so hugely popular, they would lose such an election, which is what happened. Governments do go to the country early, and they do go to the country when they want a mandate. The Government could do that equally well on this occasion.

Tony Wright: The argument is not that Governments do not go to the electorate early; of course they do. Governments go to the electorate when they think that it is to their maximum advantage to do so. That is a truism of all Governments in all times. That is the truism that I am trying to pass on, in a humble way, to the House. That is why it is essentially dishonest to claim that there is some kind of other constitutional position that demands an election at other times. There is no such position, and there is no such precedent. That is one argument.

Simon Burns: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that the answer to the question that he asked earlier is 1945? When the wartime coalition broke up, and the Labour party refused to serve in a national Government any longer, it asked for a general election. A Conservative Government were formed, and then the Conservative Government, under Winston Churchill, gave the country an election.

Tony Wright: I am very happy to discuss 1945 in considerable detail, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to.

Lembit �pik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Wright: I want to finish this point, if I may, because it is the point that I really want to make. If we were in the opposite position, we would be saying exactly the same kind of things, because that is what Oppositions do. That is the game that we play.
	I want to suggest to the House [Interruption.] May I make the argument before hon. Members have a go at me about it? I suggest to the House that we are in an exceptional moment. There is a tidal wave of anti-politics running through the country at present. Nobody can deny that. The choice before all parties is whether we seek to ride that tidal wave and try to extract some partisan advantage from itI can see the temptations of doing that; all Opposition parties will get some reward from riding that tidal waveor whether we try to turn the wave around. If we do not together turn that wave around, we are in deep trouble.
	Irrespective of the usual games that we play, we have a particular responsibility in the House now seriously, together, across party to put aside the game and to try and rebuild some faith in the system.  [Interruption.] Until we do that, we shall not be able to look the electorate in the eye and ask properly for their support.

Lembit �pik: I agree in large part with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but surely he would recognise that the game is played not just by Opposition parties. One of the great frustrations has been that the Government have been masters of spin, which is very much what he is describing. How does he foresee the Opposition and also the party of government shifting away from the spin that has eroded the confidence of the public in what they hear from us, and replacing that with honesty and content?

Tony Wright: I have said a good deal on that over the years, if I may say so, and I do not want to go there again, because I think and hope we have moved on. What I am trying to sayhon. Members may disagree with me, but it is pretty evident from what has happened in recent weeks and what happened last weekis that we have a house that is burning down. It therefore seems a bizarre moment to say, Shall we have a competition to decide which colour to paint it?  [Interruption.] We have to put the fire out [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is only fair to listen to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House. If Members want to make interventions, they should do so in the normal way, not from a sedentary position.

Tony Wright: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply say that we ought to put the fire out. Hon. Members who do not believe that there is a fire burning furiously are not listening to the electorate to whom they keep referring.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman, my near neighbour in Cannock, uses the mixed metaphors of an approaching tidal wave and a fire in a house. It seems to me that the tidal wave might put the fire out. In truth, though, is not the whole point that this Parliament is dead? Our democratic system needs renewal. The agenda is in place and the reforms that we seek will be carried out by an independent authority. This is not a party matter. Every party in the House is affected by the hon. Gentleman's tidal wave. That is the substance behind the argument that democracy must have its say and the people out there must form their new Parliament.

Tony Wright: I apologise for the mixing of metaphors, but I do not apologise for the argument. I do think that we are in the condition that I described, and millions of people out there are saying that they want nothing to do with this political system until we put our system in order. Hon. Members may disagree with that analysis, but I think that that is the position that we are in. We have a duty and a responsibility to do that, and to do it now.

Pete Wishart: I am trying to listen patiently to the hon. Gentleman's contorted logic. Does he think for a minute that the public want this Parliamentthis manure Parliamentto resolve some of these important issues? Surely it is right that we have a new group of people in this place to decide how we go forward, not the present degraded House and establishment?

Tony Wright: That argument has been put repeatedly, but curiously the situation is not unique, because often out of some great scandal, disaster or catastrophe an opportunity presents itself. I am struck by the fact that, although I and others have made arguments over the years for improving the way in which this Parliament works in a variety of ways, we have made little headway. I mind the reasons why, but there happens now to be an opportunity to do something and it is an opportunity worth taking, because they do not come along very often. It is a shame that this opportunity has come out of the circumstances in which we find ourselves but, my goodness, it is a real opportunity and we should take it.
	I wish very much that the nationalist parties had today come forward with a different propositiona motion for fixed-term Parliamentsbecause I would have supported them with enthusiasm. When we set up the new Parliaments in Scotland and Wales, it would have been thought preposterous if we had given to those people in office the power at any particular moment to decide the timing of an election.

John Mason: The hon. Gentleman's comments are more thoughtful than those of some of his colleagues, but would he go beyond the idea of a fixed-term Parliament and consider the fact that proportional representation is a key part of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and would strengthen this place, because it combines the party and the individual?

Tony Wright: The time has come to look at various voting systems, and we have a chance to look afresh at the most appropriate voting system for Westminster, but the hon. Gentleman will not lead me into the whole constitutional agenda, because, although I am tempted, I do not want to go there and the House does not want me to, either.
	The nationalist parties should have come forward with that single, sensible proposition: fixed-term Parliaments. As I said to the Prime Minister earlier, the proposition was in our party's manifesto when I was elected in 1992, and I have tried to promote it ever since. Suddenly, however, everyone seems to be in favour of it, includingpossiblythe main Opposition party, although we are never quite sure about that. It would be a genuine constitutional innovation of great merit, because we could dispense with debates like this and with the games that we play all the timethe constant nonsense of calling for elections. And I can tell the House something: that would bring huge relief to the electorate.

David Heath: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), but I must tell him that if he had wanted a fixed-term Parliament Bill, he could have had onein this Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) introduced such a Bill and I supported it, but the Government and Conservative Front-Bench teams rejected it, so the impression that they are the people who can lead us through to the reforms that we so urgently need is a mistaken one. That is why I am very happy not only to congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on his proposal but to support it in my own name and on behalf of my party.
	May I give glad tidings to the nationalist Members? Their sister party, Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalist party, contrived to secure 92 votes in Somerset for the independence of Cornwall. That is a significant achievement. The bad news, I am afraid, is that it did not beat the Labour party in my constituency. The Labour party came sixth, but Mebyon Kernow did not beat it on that occasion.
	There are two reasons why we should support the proposal. The first, which has already been touched on of course, is that this Parliamentthis Houseis catastrophically compromised. It has suffered a monumental loss of respect, and each and every right hon. and hon. Member now needs a new mandate from the people we represent. We need to know that we still enjoy the support of those who sent us here.
	The second reason is that the Government are tired and rudderless and do not know what they are doing. Their Prime Minister has no credibility and is not providing leadership. That cannot go on. We cannot, for the best part of another year, have a kind of zombie Governmentdeceased but not yet interred, stumbling on, uncomprehending and without vision. That is not in the interests of the country and that is why a general election is necessary.
	In its heart of hearts, none of the parties represented here wants an immediate election. No matter what they say, they do not desperately want to go straight back to the doorsteps of the nation so soon after a long and bruising campaign for the local and European elections. Judging by the turnout, that campaign did not result in an overwhelming sense of enthusiasm among the general public. Nor do we desperately want to go back to the doorsteps to hear the comments of some of our electors, who have not been universally complimentary about politicians of any hue. They have judged the House and found it wanting because of what they have been told by the press.
	Furthermore, none of the parties is entirely prepared for an election. The Conservative party, for instance, would have to find some policies if it were to fight an election next week; it is palpably not prepared. However, the crucial point is that those are all essentially self-serving arguments about the policies and politics of the parties in the House; they are not about what this country and the people of this country need. Whether we are ready for an election or not, I believe that the public are.
	Respect for Parliament is a crucial factor, and the collapse in respect for the House is a major reason for letting the public have their say. It affects all hon. Members, including those who have not done, or ever been accused of doing, anything wrong. Unless we are unnaturally purblind in this respect, we know that we need to give the electorate the opportunity to back or sack each and every one of us. As Robert Louis Stevenson once said:
	We all know what Parliament is, and we are all ashamed of it.
	I am thinking not of what Parliament can be but of what it is at this moment.
	There has been a collapse of confidence in the Prime Minister. If there is one clear conclusion that we can draw from last week's results, it is that the Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the people of this countryindeed, he no longer even has the confidence of members of his own party. I hate to quote too much in a speech, but in the immortal words of the Hollies:
	He's not the man to hold your trust,
	Everything he touches turns to dust.

Elfyn Llwyd: What key was that in?

David Heath: I shall sing it to the hon. Gentleman later, if he makes an appointment.
	I have explained why we need an immediate election. There is, of course, a counter-argument, and we have heard itrather inadequately, I may sayfrom the Secretary of State for Wales. He said that we faced unprecedented economic difficulties, and that is absolutely right. This is a crucial time for this country, but that is why it is so important that we have a mandate for the difficult policies involved. The Government have done some things that I support, and some have been bold policies. However, they cannot say that they have the support of the British people in carrying them out, and the consequences will be with us for a long time. I do not buy the notion that we cannot have an election in the middle of an economic crisis because, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said, major democracies across the world have done so, and prospered as a consequence.
	A second argument for not having a general election is the one put forward, to some extent, by the hon. Member for Cannock Chasethat this Parliament has got us into a mess, and therefore this Parliament, and this Government, need to clear it up. That is like the polluter pays principle, but the trouble is that it is the taxpayer who pays and the polluter who stays, and that is what so many of our fellow countrymen find so difficult to accept. It would be easier to accept that argument if there were a clear, and very quick, timetable for some of the improvements that are being talked about, but every time I hear the Prime Minister I fail to hear the urgency that is necessary if we are to do this job quickly and clinically, enabling us to go to the country at an early date.

Michael Connarty: I have heard this a few times. People say that things are going to change and be structurally different, and that we are waiting for it to happen. My understanding is that a document was sent to every single Member saying that the House has decidedled, I believe, by the Prime Ministerthat there will be no more allowances for anyone to purchase any furniture, so even Members who had to give back the price of their trouser press will not be tempted to buy another one and ask the taxpayer to pay. The sum of money available for rent or paying a mortgage on a second home, which I believe should be a home in London, will be reduced to 1,250, so the Leader of the Opposition will no longer be able to claim 1,700 per month for his mortgage. These things have already been done. They are in place and have been ruled on by the Members Estimate Committee, so they are binding at this moment. No Minister, or anyone else, will be allowed to have a house outside London

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has not only made his point but undermined his own argument. If we think that everything in the garden is rosy, then there is no obstacle to the general election that some of us believe should be held, but that is not the case. We have done some very basic things that some of us called for a long time ago, but they are far insufficient in meeting what is needed. If he really thinks that that is enough to regain the trust of the electorate, I can only suggest that he has not been on the doorsteps in recent weeks with enough assiduity.
	The third argument against having a general election concerns the point that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made so amusingly about chaos theorythe Prime Minister's idea that we would somehow be plunged into irremediable chaos were we to have a general election. I do not buy that for one moment. However, let me share something that I seem to remember from a long time ago in the days when I was attempting to do physiological sciences. There is a sort of chaos that is often observed at a microscopic level among very small organisms within an aqueous medium: it is called Brownian motion, and that is what we have seen from the Government recently.
	So what has been the Government's response to this crisis of confidence in the House and in the Government? We have had yet another of the Prime Minister's regular relaunches. Sadly, he is getting into a situation similar to that of the former right hon. Member for Huntingdonhe has been relaunched almost as many times as the Padstow lifeboat. It never really does the job, because one can only relaunch one's boat so many times when it is leaking below the waterline, as is the case at the moment.
	We have had a re-engineered Cabinet. A Department that was created only a year ago has been subsumed by another onepurely, it would appear, for the greater glorification of the noble Lord Mandelson. I will not go through the whole of his nomenclature, as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks did, but it occurs to me that this new Department will need very wide doors if his name is to be displayed appropriately.
	We have a new Cabinet. Is anybody excited by it? Does anyone feel it will supply the answers to the country's problems? As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be seven people attending Cabinet who are not elected Members. I would have thought that that situation would be familiar to the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury rather than to a Government in the 21st century, yet that is what we now have. It suggests that there is a conspicuous lack of talent in this elected House if that is what the Prime Minister has to rely on. Or perhaps those who will serve in his Cabinet do not have the talent, and those who have the talent will not serve in his Cabinet. Either way, it does not suggest a Prime Minister with the confidence of either his colleagues or the country.
	Today, we heard a cobbled-together programme of constitutional change. It picked up bits and pieces of what other people have suggested over the years, but was all developed in the secretive and obscure way that is always the modus operandi of this Prime Minister. It tells us everything we need to know about him that his idea of consensus is to have this Committee of Public Safety, or whatever it is called, with no Opposition parties invited to contribute. Do not invite anyone who might disagreethat is the way to build consensus, is it not? It establishes immediate consensus.
	Today's statement was issued to the leaders of the other parties a quarter of an hour before Prime Minister's questions. The Prime Minister then challenged them to establish a consensus by agreeing with what he and his cronies had put together as a proposal for a constitutional change. Then he had the gall to say that that was the new politics, the change, the way we were now going to do things to establish democratic renewal based on the agreement of all parties and people across the country.
	The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that he is the man to cure Parliament of its ills. However, he is the man who, when the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) was trying to exempt the House from freedom of information legislation, could not be bothered to turn up to vote. Members can look it up in  Hansard for 20 April 2007. That was the sort of leadership that the Prime Minister showed. He allowed Government Whips to do their job and help the Bill to go through, and he allowed them to vote, but he absented himself. So did the Secretary of State for Wales.
	The Prime Minister is the man who, on 3 July last year, when there was a perfectly proper proposal from the House of Commons Commission to bring in independent auditing of Members' allowances, was again not here. He was not present to support that proposal, and he allowed it to be amended out of the Commission's proposals, so this House managed to escape proper independent auditing of allowances for yet another year. He now says that he is the man to reform the system in this House. He is not the man, because he is not a leader. He is in fact an obstacle to reform, and has been for 12 years now.

Angus MacNeil: The Prime Minister has been here for only 11 per cent. of Divisions since becoming Prime Minister. By contrast, the First Minister of Scotland has attended 86 per cent. of Divisions in the Scottish Parliament.

David Heath: I am not sure that that is exactly the statistic that I would have used had I been the hon. Gentleman; nevertheless it is immediately apparent that there is a lack of leadership. That leadership is not coming from the front of the Prime Minister's party, from the back or even from behind home lines. This Prime Minister is failing in his duty to provide leadership. Personally, I therefore have no confidence in the Prime Minister or his Government.
	I do not believe that my constituents have any confidence in the Prime Minister or the Government. My worry is not that they have no confidence in the Labour party and its doings, but that they have no confidence in Parliament. That is enormously dangerous for our democracy. If our electors do not have confidence in the House to do the job for which it is elected, the House is doing democracy an enormous disservice. That should be a matter not for any one party but for the public to sort out.
	It should not be for the Prime Minister and his gang but for the people to decide whether there should be a general election. We do not have fixed-term Parliaments in this country; we have a system whereby the Government of the day choose the date of an election. So be it, but they must listen. At the moment, they are not listening to what the public say. There is only one solution to the predicament in which we find ourselves: we should let the people decide through the ballot box. They should do so forthwith.

Anne McGuire: It was a great pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I feel somewhat deprived in that I was never abledoubtless because of my political affiliationsto attend one of his famous after-dinner speeches. It has therefore been a great privilege to hear today an outstanding example of a pre-dinner speech for free, on which I congratulate him.
	I would give the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the reasons for calling for an early general election more credence if he had not been part of a Government in 1997 who hung on to almost the last minute of the last hour of the last day. I appreciate that a week is a long time in politics, and we can all have selective memories, so I enjoyed the contribution, if not the analysis.

Richard Bacon: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: All right then. The hon. Gentleman tempts meI do not know why, but he does.

Richard Bacon: Many women say that to me.
	It is not a case of selective memory on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Indeed, he and many of us think that we should not go through it all again precisely because of the memory of what happened in 1997.

Anne Begg: And in 1992.

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is right. The hon. Gentleman makes a valiant attempt not at seduction but at producing an argument out of very little.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) who gave a considered analysis of where we are now and why we should reject the motion. If hon. Members have no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, we should debate a motion on that, not some camouflage about calling general elections. As my hon. Friend said, it is the tradition in the British systemit may change; we may move to a system of fixed Parliaments, to which some of us are attractedthat deciding when to call a general election is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the day. Some spurious arguments have been made this afternoon to try to justify an unjustifiable position.
	I want to pick up on the nationalists' decision to table such a motion. I am astonished that they have chosen such a subject for debate when the country, along with the rest of the world, faces the most serious financial and economic crisis in a generation. They have chosen to use their valuable Opposition time to engage in superficial posturing. I would have thought that they might want to have a debate on how this countrythis Government and this Parliamenthas dealt with the economic crisis.

Pete Wishart: Badly.

Anne McGuire: I suggest that hon. Gentleman should have put down a motion asking us to compare how this Government have dealt with the economic crisis with how it has been dealt with by some of the countries in the arc of prosperity, of which we are all so fond. We could then compare how this Government are dealing with the economic crisis with, for example, how Ireland is dealing with it, where there has been a 25 per cent. cut in public services and where benefits for the over-70s are being cut radically. Let us compare that with what is happening in Britain. VAT in Ireland is now more than 20 per cent. Let us compare that with what has happened in this country, where the Government have cut VAT. The manufacturing base in Ireland has collapsed and the construction industry has all but collapsed. That would have been a valid debate.

Michael Connarty: It might be useful to look at what the Government did to save the Scottish economy at the same time. More than 60 billion went into saving the two Scottish banks that basically caused the crisis. As Lord Myners said last week in his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, we must not forget that the cause of the collapse of the economy lies with the banks, particularly the Scottish banks. We now have 200 billion of toxic debt, which we took on board to save the Scottish economy, which is much lauded by the Opposition parties.

Anne McGuire: The reality is that if the nationalists had their way and we were a separate country from the rest of the United Kingdom, those two major financial institutions would not have survived the economic tsunami that swept over them last autumn.

John Mason: rose

Anne McGuire: I will come to the hon. Gentleman in just a second, so he might want to keep his powder dry for the moment.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is not in the Chamber now. He highlighted opinion polls and what they tell us. However, he failed to recognise that yesterday's ComRes poll for the Daily Politics showed that the majority of Scots were opposed to a general election and opposed to the Prime Minister resigning. They rejected the alternativethe Leader of the Oppositionas a Prime Minister. According to the poll, in answer to the question, Should Gordon Brown resign immediately?, 68 per cent. of Scots said no. In answer to the question, Should there be a general election now?, 55 per cent. said no. In answer to the question, Do you agree with this statement: 'The Leader of the Opposition has what it takes to be a good Prime Minister'?, 55 per cent. said no. If we are going to start trading opinion polls, let us put them all on the table, not just the selected few that the hon. Gentleman put before us today.
	The SNP is indulging in what it does best, which is playground politics, when the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom are looking to the Government to support them through the challenges that they face in coping with the recession. People are looking to a Government who will continue to invest in our public services through these difficult times. They are also looking at this Parliament to ensure that we deal with a discredited expenses regime that has brought us all shame and embarrassment.

Angus MacNeil: If the right hon. Lady is confident of the Government's performance, surely she has nothing to fear from a general election.

Anne McGuire: This is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase highlighted: if we had a general election every time the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues or anyone else on the Opposition Benches called for one, thenheaven help uswe would be in and out of general elections more often than the tongue could tell. The constitutional position is that it is the Prime Minister's and the Government's prerogative to go to the Queen and ask for a general election. If those on the Opposition Benches want to say that they have no confidence in Her Majesty's Government, they should have the courage of their convictions and say that, and not try to cloak it in camouflage about a general election that will do for us all.
	I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is no longer in his place. He paid us a state visit today for a few minutes, but his time would have been far better spent looking at how the construction industry in Scotland is falling off a cliff because the Scottish Futures Trust is not up and running. I ask the House to consider the political judgment of a First Minister who despises the Union of the nations of the United Kingdom, yet comes to the embodiment of the Union in this Parliament to take part in what is frankly a piece of political theatre while important legislation on sexual offences is being debated and voted on in the Scottish Parliamenta body of which he is the political leader. I am sorry that he is not here in his place to hear this, but he certainly trailed to the whole of the media in Scotland that he was coming here to participate in this debate today.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the theatre that we are seeing here today is based on nothing other than the nationalists' desire for independence, because Scotland will not tolerate a Conservative Government led by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)?

Anne McGuire: This is a plea to the Conservatives and perhaps even to some of the thinking Liberals: they need to be very careful when getting into bed with the nationalists. The nationalists are not about making this democracy or this House stronger. They are about taking Scotland out of the United Kingdom. That is why we are having this debate today. It gives them another opportunity to pursue that agenda.
	We should not be surprised about that, however, because bringing down a Labour Government is part of the SNP's DNA. It did it once, and it hopes that it can do it again. I challenge the hon. Members representing the SNP in this House to look at what happened the last time they got into bed with the Conservatives

Hon. Members: You got beat!

Gordon Banks: Scotland got beat.

Anne McGuire: I can deal with the hon. Member from Tayside

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these interventions from a sedentary position. This is serious; they simply spark off interventions across the House. It is only fair to listen to what the right hon. Lady is saying.

Anne McGuire: Hon. Members say that we got beat. I remind them that the price the Scottish National party paid in 1979 was to go down from 11 MPs to two, because the Scottish people saw through the ruse that it perpetrated.

John Mason: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention now, but I promise him that he will have a second chance in a few moments.

John Mason: I appreciate the right hon. Lady giving way. Does she accept that, in 1979, the Scottish people could see a difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party? Now, they cannot see a difference. On Iraq, Royal Mail privatisation, Trident and budget cuts, the parties are both the same.

Anne McGuire: In some respects, I wish that I had not let the hon. Gentleman in, because I am going to deal with some of those issues in a minute and give the House some personal information that he might find interesting.
	I want to ask the House to reflect on the situation in 1979, when the leader of the nationalists in this House was the late Donald Stewart. I think it was agreed on all sides that he was an honourable and conscientious Member of Parliament. On 28 March 1979, during a debate on a motion of no confidence, he said of Mrs. Thatchernow the noble Baroness Thatcher:
	The Scottish people will educate her.[ Official Report, 28 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 489.]
	Well, if there was ever a time when a good man called it wrong, that was it. I often wonder whether, in the 18 long years of the last Conservative Government, Donald Stewart or any of those other 10 nationalist MPs ever stopped to reflect in sorrow on the consequences of their actions that night. As I suggested earlier, some of them had plenty of time to reflect, because nine of them were not returned to this House.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder, given those 18 long years of Tory rule over Scotland without a mandate, whether the right hon. Lady would have preferred an independent Scotland, perhaps led by a Labour Government with Donald Dewar at the helm?

Anne McGuire: To talk about whether we would have wanted an independent Scotland is such a hoary old chestnut. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, we do not accept that an independent Scotland is the way forward in the 21st century. We believe that we are stronger together than we are apart [Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has a fundamental difference of opinion with us on that, and I have no objection to his taking an opposite view, but to be frank, the question he asked is spurious, to use that word again.
	Let me deal with the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason), who I heard saying on the radio the other night that he would bring down any UK Government because he was a nationalistor words to that effect.  [Interruption.] He may well rub his hands with glee, but his constituency is one I grew up init was then known as Glasgow, Provanand my father was a regional councillor in the old Strathclyde region. The hon. Gentleman may well think it fun to bring down a UK Government, so let me tell him that when he and his erstwhile colleagues in those days rushed to bring down a Labour Government, they ushered in some of the darkest days for the communities he now represents. Those communities were almost destroyed by unemployment and deprivation during those years, when a Conservative Government were prepared to stand back and let things take their course. The former constituency of Glasgow, Provan had an unemployment rate of about 35 per cent.

Adam Price: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Anne McGuire: No, I am dealing with an area that I know particularly well. I was saying that the unemployment rate was 35 per cent., and by 1988 some 57 per cent. of working women in Scotland did not have a wage sufficient to support them. There were streets in the community I grew up in where once everyone went out to work, but by the end of the Thatcher years, nobody went out to work. That was the price that the nationalists thought was worth paying in 1979. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East and his colleagues are leopards that have never changed their spots.

Adam Price: But is it not the case that if the Labour Government had not gerrymandered the result of the referendum in Scotland, the people of Glasgow and of Scotland would have had a Scottish Parliament to protect them through the dark days of Thatcherism? The fact that that did not happen was the responsibility of the Labour Government of the time.

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman should go back and read the debate on the motion of no confidence in 1979and the lead-up to itand see what was offered by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, in order to deal with some of the issues in the referendum debate. What happened was that a nationalist group decided to put their faith in a Conservative leader and it told the people of Scotland that she would be educated by them. She was no more educated by them than she could fly.

John Mason: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's generosity in giving way a second time, having mentioned my constituency. Does she accept that something strange happened last summer when people in an area of this country, even if we call it the UK, who had voted Labour faithfully in council and all other elections over years and decades somehow lost trust with and failed to vote for the Labour party?

Anne McGuire: I do not want to go into history lessons about the hon. Gentleman's area, as I am not nearly as good at history as the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the history of his constituency, however, he would find that it was once represented by three nationalist councillors and that he himself represented a third of that constituency, so the suggestion that people in his area had never flirted with other political parties is franklyI do not want to say untruenot an accurate reflection of the picture.

Gordon Banks: Does my right hon. Friend wish to comment on the history created in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason) last Thursday in the European elections, which demonstrated something quite different from what he has been trying to tell the House?

Anne McGuire: I did not attend the count in Glasgow, but I understand that the count in one particular district gave a strong indication that the hon. Gentleman might, to use a well-known Scottish phrase, find his jaicket on a shoogly nailand I will translate that later for  Hansard.
	Let me say a little about my constituency. It contains mining villages that were decimated during those 18 long years. Lives were shattered and people were marginalised by a Government who engaged in a political strategy to smash a mining industry, and failed to provide any alternative employment. My constituency contains rural areas where there was no investment in education or transport. It took the re-emergence of a Labour Government, and then a Labour-led Scottish Executive, to ensure that the schools in my constituency were either rebuilt or refurbished, and to ensure the commissioning of a new hospital which had been a dream for 40 or 50 yearsa dream which, I believe, was shared by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks).
	I say to the nationalists, Put your political posturing to one side. Last time you did this, it cost the Scottish people dear. Tonight many Members will join you in the Lobby, but do not be flattered, because they flatter to deceive, just as they did last time.
	The nationalists are playing political games when people in Scotland and people across the United Kingdom are looking to this Government, and indeed to the Scottish Government, for responsibility and leadership to get us through difficult times. This motion is self-indulgence of the worst kind. It exposes the willingness of members of the SNP and their colleagues in Plaid Cymruwho, admittedly, did not vote to bring down a Labour Government on the last occasionto be used by a Conservative party which, if it were ever given the chance again, would introduce a spending regime that, albeit cloaked in different and softer words, would make it almost impossible for them and us to deliver the necessary services to the Scottish people and to people across the United Kingdom. The last time the Scottish nationalists played midwife to a Tory Government, they thought that it was a price worth paying. Labour Members will do all that we can to prevent that from ever happening again.

Richard Shepherd: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for tabling the motion. Very rarely do we debate a subject as broad as the dissolution of the House. If I may, however, I will not follow the nationalists' line of argument, and I regret that I am also unable to follow that of the Secretary of State for Wales. I can only reflect that he may have been distracted by the thought that he was securing his position as a new Cabinet Minister and therefore could not really give his attention to the issue.
	This is not, in truth, about the popularity or otherwise of a Government; Governments are unpopular from time to time. Indeed, it is not just about the unpopularity of a Prime Minister. Goodnessif we got rid of Prime Ministers just because they were unpopular, we would never have a public policy in this country. This is about more. It is about the dissolution of Parliament, and that means our going to face the people as well.
	I do not want either to follow the line that was so adequatelyso heroicallyaddressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). It is the classic and great spirit of Parliament to mock, to identify and to twist the truths into the nerves of those who face us across the Floor of the House. My right hon. Friend produced a compelling argument and gave a profoundly good performance as a parliamentarian.
	What I want to examine is the argument that my right hon. Friend could not address, because at that stage it had not been presented. I refer, of course, to the argument of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). If I understand it correctly, the hon. Gentleman's argument is that this awful time when the House is at its greatest discountwhen it is being judged by the public, possibly not even reasonably, because of the extent of their present furyis essentially not a time for a general election, because the electorate may, in their rage and anger, sweep away that which may be good or right about this House. This is a profoundly important argument.
	This House as a collective, and including the Government, has in its time been profoundly unpopular. We only have to think of the long march, of which the Labour party was an integral part, towards reaching democratic and accountable government. In 1832, this House and the other place feared revolution. They wanted to hold to their established ways of doing things. The men of Birmingham and Wolverhampton marched through Walsall, seeking to acquire some very limited form of representation, and there were those who harrumphed that this country hung on the edge of revolution and that that which was good would be swept away. In the event, the moderation and reasonableness of the people of Britainin this instance, the people of Englandprevailed, and that tiny step was taken.
	In 1865, an extraordinary thing happened. In 1860, a Prime Minister had set his face against a further extension that would enfranchise a larger part of the nation. Gladstone could not achieve such a thing when he was Prime Minister, but Disraeli, with the co-operation of Gladstone and the voice and arguments of Bright across this land, achieved something that shaped and formed the character of the Chamber in which we sit today. Let us not doubt it: reaction would have seen that off.
	As to revolutionary responses that sweep things away, many people out there, in their understandable rage, want to sweep us away and thereby sweep away continuity. I must address the hon. Gentleman's remarks by saying that I do not fear that. Half of the Members of this House will probably remain, and half will leave. In that turn of events there will be a natural renewal of the House, whenever an election comes. A previous argument then returns: do we not think that the electorate are making an irrational judgment? Who are we to claim that? Is doing so not a display of self-serving self-satisfaction? Do the people not have the right to do this if they judge that the Government should change? It is pointed out that we have constitutional practice, and a Government are, by statute, in place for five years. The current Government have been in office for four years, and the tradition in this country is that, by and large, a modern Government seek a four-year term. It is said that we can extend that because there are important and necessary things to be done to prepare the new Parliament for, perhaps, a better prospect.
	That is where the speech of my right hon. Friend comes into play. What are these important things? Of course, the economy is the issue that grinds away in my constituency, along with contempt for the way in which we as individuals have handled our expenses. It is the economy, in truth; that is where we should justify ourselves.
	We on the Back Benches are not the Government. We hold the Government to account, and that function does not belong solely and exclusively to those on these Benches. This House has lost its lustre because people who stood as Labour candidates, were elected as Labour Members and who believe in Labour policies did not think it necessary to insist that the Government's policies should be argued and reasoned, and that they could go forth and convince the people that the Government's policies were worthy, because the Government won the argument.
	Unfortunately, the evacuation from the Chamber of the Secretary of State for Wales meant that he did not answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend about the conduct of business. As the hon. Gentleman said, we now have an opportunity for this House to revive itself. I believe that profoundly, but with this personnelwith these Membersit cannot have the confidence or authority to sustain a Government. That is what the House does, collectively, but this Government have no purpose now.
	The reform of expenses has now been taken out of the hands of this House, effectively, because the people have thrown their derision and scorn at it. Freedom of information was mentioned, and one need only look at the list of those who voted, including Ministers, because they were available on a Friday. Whips were imposed by both partiesI do not pretend otherwiseto defy the very principle of open government and our accountability for our use of public money.
	We comforted ourselves with the thought that the system was out of the sight of others and that our integrity was reinforced by the fact that it was authorised. That has been swept aside, and we all recognise that. A process is under way. We look forward to Sir Christopher's review. We will bear it heavily, perhaps, but it is right that the people should have the response that they wanted and that this is no longer in our hands.
	This issue should not be about the Prime Minister outbidding the Leader of the Opposition, or about star chambers. The Prime Minister used the term, but a Star Chamber put fear into this country for 100 years. The king appointed judges to sit in a little courtroom not far from here. He made charges, and strangely enough, his chosen judges found people guilty and he would then say that the verdict was right. That is what we have slipped into in our crisis. It denigrates our tradition of liberty and it is contrary to our sense of process and fair trial. That is what we have reduced ourselves toto accepting that, when we can do better.
	It will not be for us to do better. Our time has passed. This House is dead on its feet and it needs the renewal of authority that, in our tradition and purpose, justifies its being a cradle of democracy and the little Chamber that was once an example to the world. That is the restoration that we can seek through the people. This House has no time left. Whatever initiative is announced or programme proposed, there will be a summer recess and a Queen's Speech, but we all know that the parties will be working on their manifestos. That is what it is about. Perhaps some still hope that something will turn up, but the public mind knows that we are a busted flush. In truth, we know that too: there should be an election.

Russell Brown: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). He speaks with great sincerity, but he and I are coming from opposite sides of the argument. I come from a background where, if something has gone wrong, the duty lies with the individual or individuals who have got it wrong to start to put things right and to mend [ Interruption. ] He says from a sedentary position that we have, and, yes, I think we have put interim measures in place to deal with the whole allowances fiasco. An independent reviewer will come to us with their views. I sincerely hope that the whole House would get 100 per cent. behind that and would accept what is being said.

Greg Mulholland: One of the problems is that people in the areas where some of the MPs who have abused the allowances system are standing down will not have any representation. It is not realistic to call umpteen by-elections, which need to happen. In those seats, people will not accept MPs simply standing down butpotentiallygetting a salary for another nine months and a pay-off. Those MPs should go now. The only way to do that sensibly, I am afraid, is to dissolve this House and call an election, so that we can get rid of those people who have abused the system in the ways that we have seen over the past few weeks.

Russell Brown: I accept, to a certain extent, what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but let me go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) in opening the debate. There is a clear indication that at the moment people are fixatedjustifiably soon the allowances and the expenditure that falls into the hands of elected Members, and on the way in which some people have abused that. I have committed things to writing in the past on allowances, and I have said things. In the past couple of months, I have voted in a certain way. Never in my wildest imagination did I recognise what was going on. I defy anyone to stand up and say, Well, I knew that that was going on. I do not think that the majority of this House did. What the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) says makes sense. I do not fear for myself, because there was life before this House and there will be life after it, but I do fear that we will sweep away far too many good and decent people. We have a judgment to make. Do we tolerate for another few months those who might have abused the system, or do we run the risk of sweeping away honest, decent people who deserve to come back here to build on the strengths that we have put in place?
	May I quote a few words? They are
	to serve our countrythat is all we ask.
	Those were the words used by the late John Smith some 15 years ago in a speech he made the evening before, tragically, he passed away. Membersand I would include myselfwould do well on occasion to remember why we are in this House. We are here to represent people. We are not here to save our political skins or our necks. We are here to do a job. I fear the results of the hostility towards each and every one of us, which I witnessed during the European election campaign. I witnessed people who would normally support my party saying on polling day that they were not coming out. It was their chance to protest. We all saw what happened last Thursday.
	Dissolution would mean an election, and an election is about policies and manifestos. We would be asking people to vote when they were angry, and not really aware of what any party was proposing. Some might say that it is time for change, and we have heard that often enough. It was time for change back in 1997, when my party brought forward a manifesto containing pledges on a national minimum wage, devolved Government, the new deal, cutting class sizes and NHS investment. People who wanted change could get behind that manifesto.
	The people who have led today's debate said that it was time for change two years ago, but I do not believe that they expected to be able to form a minority Administration in Scotland after that election. The Scottish National party's manifesto contained a number of pledges, but it is important that people who lay out their stall in that way stick to what they propose.
	The pledge to introduce a local income tax failed. Up to now at least, the pledge on the Scottish futures trust has also failed, and there have been failures on class sizes, probationary teachers and student debt.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the governing party in Scotland has 47 MSPs, yet the Budget in Scotland was approved by a majority of more than 120.

Russell Brown: There was undoubtedly significant wheeling and dealinggrown-up politics, but fundamentally different from delivering on pledges and commitments to the people.
	The Scottish Administration have failed on police numbers, prison overcrowding and support for first-time buyers. I am only disappointed that I could not get hold of the Scottish National party's election leaflet so that I could bring it to the debate and say, Could do significantly better.

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: No, as I have only two or three minutes. At general elections, people deserve to have manifestos laid before them.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: No, as I am not taking any more interventions. People deserve to have policies and manifestos laid out before them, but before I finish I want to take up the earlier reference to 1979.
	My late and good comrade Bob Cryer began his contribution to the debate on 28 March 1979 at 8.20 pm by saying:
	That is characteristic of the Tories. They are not acting from principle. Their principle is opportunism. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the SNP put down a motion and the Tories went into action to follow it up. The Tories did not produce their motion for any reasons that they could adduce about the state of the nation or the economy.
	He went on to say:
	The Opposition often betray a duality of standards...the chairman of the Conservative party could be receiving 30,000 per year from Pirelli, a company which is apparently overcharging the Post Office by 9 million a year.[ Official Report, 28 March 1979; Vol. 965, c. 552-53.]
	He went on to talk about the individual responsibility that every hon. Member bears.

Richard Bacon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: Given that the hon. Gentleman is bigger than me, I will give way very briefly to him.

Richard Bacon: I detected some dissatisfaction on the hon. Gentleman's part with what the Scottish National party had said and subsequently done. Will he explain how it was that the Scottish nationalists were supported so strongly by the Scottish people?

Russell Brown: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, above the guffawing that is going on, that I expected a honeymoon period, but it has gone beyond that and what the Scottish National party has had is more than a fair wind; it has been a love-in that John Lennon and Yoko Ono would have thought brilliant.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) says from a sedentary position that the SNP Government are not doing anything. They complain and whinge about a 500 million cut in a Budget, when in actual fact they are gettingpeople need to know this700 million extra this coming year.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Russell Brown: No, because, in spite of all this, I wish to finish by paying a compliment to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). I want to share a secret with him and everyone else in the Housenobody else is really going to know this. At the time his party was selecting its last leader, I was in a room with about 15 other people who were all members of a Conservative associationI did not know that at the time. I said that the best individual to lead their party was him and that he would be the next Conservative Prime Minister. I think his time as party leader came early, because as far as I am concerned he stands head and shoulders above anyone else on the Conservative Benches. That may upset the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I sincerely hope that it is not the kiss of death for the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks.
	In conclusion, I thought that this evening we might have been able to get an answer from the SNP to a question that it was asked twice: what would it prefer to see after the next election? Would the SNP prefer to see a Labour Government or a Tory Government returned to this House? What is the SNP's view? We do not get an answer to that.

Angus MacNeil: Can I get an answer from the hon. Gentleman that I failed to get from the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)? Would he have preferred an independent Scotland with a Labour Government during the 1980s or 18 years of a Tory Government from Westminster? What is his answer?

Russell Brown: Let me say slowly, so that the hon. Gentleman can understand, that Labour is a party of the Union; we do not believe in independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, we would much have preferred to see a different form of words used today; the nationalists could have used this Opposition day debate in a much more constructive manner. They have failed, and although the people of Scotland have not recognised it yet, they will do; time will catch up with the SNP. I hope that my Labour colleagues will vote against the motion.

Elfyn Llwyd: We have had a wide-ranging debate, which started with a fine speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). He referred to the fact that the public are demanding that we go to the people and ask for a fresh mandate. I believe that what he said was right, and that this whole idea of the British National party was not an aberration; it is not going to go away unless we tackle it head on. One of the reasons why that evil has come into politics is because Parliament is discredited as an institutionthat is obvious.
	It would have been better if the Prime Minister had been here for this debate, because many of the points raised in it were made in his earlier statement, with which I agreed almost entirely. The timing and the re-announcements perhaps were not good, but generally what he said was good and worthy.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Moray referred to the fact that this is not, and is not meant to be, a motion of no confidence. He mentioned the various surveys and opinion polls that have been carried out recently, which found that the vast majority of the public have come out in favour of an immediate election. We are talking not about one or two polls but about several, and the majorities involved have often been very large. We will doubtless be able to read the exact percentages at our leisure. He rightly said that we need to grasp the nettle, because we must sort this out. The expenses scandal has been sorted out in part, but we need to accept what the Kelly commission says, be it good, bad or indifferent. We need to accept it fully, because we cannot cherry-pick. If we do so, we will be back in the same position. My hon. Friend put to rest the idea that it is wrong to have an election during an economic crisis, referring to India, the USA, Canada and other places. The idea that we cannot have an election is preposterous, as was underlined very well also by other speakers, including the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).
	The Secretary of State for Wales is out of practice as a Front Bencher, I have to say. He picked up a speech that was frankly not worthy of him. He did not write that speech, because it was drivel. He would not have written it; I say that because I know that he is an intelligent man. However, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) said, we are all playing the game. The Secretary of State played the game but, with respect, not very well. That was not his fault; it was the fault of the speech-writer [Interruption.] Oh, it was? I beg the Secretary of State's pardon. I am awfully sorry, but he is out of practice, after all. I welcome him back.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have very limited time left; I am sorry. The Secretary of State has conceded defeat at the next election, because he said that calamity would follow if the motion were put to the vote and the vote was won. He referred to lancing the boil, but waiting nine months to lance a boil is not, medically, a good idea. Boils need to be lanced fairly quickly. Waiting would only lead to septicaemia; I know that, and I am not a doctor. There was a bit of knockabout, I accept, but at the end of the day, the Secretary of State needs a bit of practice. However, I welcome him back; he is a worthy Front-Bench Member, but he was skewered once or twice by pretty sharp interventions from Members on the nationalist Benches; some pretty accurate darts were thrown, I thought.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, in an erudite speechwhich is what we expect of himreferred to the tasks ahead. He spoke of the national democratic renewal council, that wonderful institution, reflective of everyone in the House, that is peopled by Ministers and that meets behind closed doors. No doubt it will be given a great deal of credence and will have a great deal of legitimacy when it comes together. He said, rightly, that the majority of people now believe that an election is necessary. He referred to the polls, and rightly said that dissolution is really in the public interest. He mentioned that Labour support is at its lowest since the 18th century. He referred to the famous time when the Prime Minister bottled an election, and said that the Prime Minister does not want one now because there might be chaos.
	The reference made by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks to Ceausescu was interesting. It was meant to be a jest, but there is some rather interesting background to it. No doubt the new national democratic renewal council will be quoted at length on the Supreme Leader page of  Private Eye. It reminds one of some lines written by Brechtwhom we all read regularly, no doubtafter the anti-Government riots in East Berlin in 1953:
	After the uprising of the 17th of June
	The Secretary of the Writers Union
	Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
	Stating that the people
	Had forfeited the confidence of the government
	And could win it back only
	By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
	In that case for the government
	To dissolve the people
	And elect another?
	That does make one think about the situation in general. The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the huge democracies of India and the USA, which had elections in an orderly mannerno whiff of chaos there, but apparently the Prime Minister believes it is impossible to have an election here because it would be chaotic. That undermines the credence and the intelligence of the British people.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Elfyn Llwyd: I have no time; I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman had remained in the Chamber throughout the debate, I probably would have given way to him.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred in a very humorous manner to Cardinal Wolsey and to Lord Mandelson [Interruption.]or Archbishop Mandelson. That was a tour de force. It was hugely amusing and very effective.
	I turn now to the contribution of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase. With respect, I do not think that he got things rightunusually for a gentleman who speaks very well on such subjects. He referred to the motion as dishonest and dangerous, but it is neither. It is called for by the people, and we believe that we are responding to what the people want. He said that we play the game, and yes, we do, but he then said that Governments call elections when they think they can win them. That is playing the game, is it not? That is the worst form of game, in my view.
	The hon. Gentleman missed the point. The motion is unprecedented. There has never been a motion of this kind before Parliament before. Oppositions have tabled motions of no confidence, but this is a dissolution motion by Parliament and of Parliament, and it is quite different from any previous motion. Unusually, I find myself completely at variance with the hon. Gentleman's normally well-informed views.
	In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), mentioned two main reasons why he supported the motionthat Parliament was compromised and the fact we have lost respect, and that we should go back to the people to seek a mandate. He spoke of the collapse of confidence in the Government and in the Prime Minister, and said that the economic difficulties made it even more pressing and more important for us to go to the country. He said that if a timetable were forthcoming for the work to be completed and if the date of an election were announced, that might be better, but he referred to the Government's response to the crisis of confidence. There is indeed a crisis of confidence. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister is failing in leadership.
	The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) referred to a poll which supported keeping the Prime Minister in place. It was a poll of fewer than 100 people perhaps not the most persuasive evidence in support, and not really a poll. She also let slip during her speech that a general election would do for us all. That may be so, but it is not a reason not to go to the country. I am afraid it was rather a self-serving speech, characterised by continuous attacks on the Scottish National party and little else.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made a very thoughtful contribution, as he always does, referring to history1832, the long march, the fear of revolution, 1865 and so on. He said that if there were a poll, perhaps half the House would go and half would remain, and that in itself would be renewal. That is absolutely right. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other Member should fear going to the people, letting them make their voice heard, and reacting accordingly. It was a very good speech.
	The hon. Gentleman described the current situation as a busted flush. That is exactly what it is. People out there believe that this institution is badly damaged. As usual, his logic was unanswerable, and the oratoryI call it thatcommanded absolute silence in the Chamber. That silence was eloquent.
	From the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown), finally, we had a walk round the trees and the woods, and some insults to the Scottish National party. He came up with several answers to several questions, but one question that he could not answer was that if the Scottish Government, God help them, are so bad, why are they running away with the polls in Scotland?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows to face the House, if only for the  Hansard writers.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman made his points in a rather theatrical manner. The question that he could not answer was why the Scottish Government did so fantastically well last week if they are letting the Scots people down. In every opinion poll, consistently, their support goes up and through the roof. There we have it. We heard a speech that did not take us very far.
	We have had a good debate. It was worth having. The motion is not a no confidence motion; it is about the credibility of Parliament. Many of us in many parties believe, as I am sure in their heart of hearts do many Labour Members, that we have a busted flush. If we went to the country, there would be a renewal. All the procedures are in place. We are waiting for Kelly. Other procedures have been put in place pro tem. There is nothing to prevent us from having an election as those other countries have recently had.
	I urge hon. Members to think carefully about how they vote this evening. I urge Members on the Government Benches to join those of us who are democratically concerned about the future of this place, and to join us in the Lobby later.

Chris Bryant: I apologise to the House for the fact that it is me replying to the debate, but I had been asked to do so before I was moved to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so this is my sort of final appearance as the Deputy Leader of the House.
	We had some interesting speeches this afternoon, and some that were fundamentally misleading. It is a shame that the [ Interruption. ] Oh, no, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has been able to get back into the Chamber now. I disagreed with almost every word that he said, as I am sure he would expect. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) tried to patronise the Secretary of State for Wales, which is the hon. Gentleman's favourite tactic when he is rattled, but I thought that my right hon. Friend made a very good argument, and I hope to return to it.
	We then had important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who made some important points that needed to be heard about the Scottish nationalists' record. We also heard from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), whom I like to think of as an hon. Friend these days. When he was lying on top of me the other dayor I was lying on top of him, I cannot rememberon the rugby pitch at Twickenham, he impressed upon me the need for radical reform of Parliament, and, as he knows, I have always agreed with him on those matters.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and he always speaks from the heart, with minimal notes and with great conviction. I do not happen to agree with the conclusions that he came to, and, as he knows, I often disagree with the conclusions that he comes to; none the less, I share with him the respect for this House and the importance of our being able to reinforce its value into the future and to restore the reputation in which it is held. He referred to several changes to the constitution which were brought about in the 19th century. One of the most important changes, as far as the Rhondda was concerned, was when the franchise was extended to miners, and, from that day forward, they have had Labour representation.
	We need to make further reforms, and the most important question that we need to consider when we consider whether to dissolve Parliament is whether there is anything that weweneed to do urgently. I believe that there are two very important things that we need to do urgently.
	I realise, however, that I have forgotten the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his highly illuminating speech. He did, however, mislead usinadvertently, I am sureon one fact. He said that he thought that, one day, the Business Secretary, my Lord[Hon. Members: Aah!] Well, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Business Secretary was going to be an archbishop, and, from my former career, I am used to calling archbishops my Lord. I am sure, however, that he would not suffice with an archbishopric; after all, archbishops can be fallible.
	Most importantly, there are significant things that we need to do as a Government. I believe, as all Members have said today, that we need to take very seriously the message that the electorate sent us last weeka message not only to my political party, but to all political parties represented in this Chamber. There was a significant fall in turnout in many areas and there was a vote for the far right in many areas. In my constituency, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came in after the British National party. There are very important issues that we need to bear in mind; there are important reforms that we need to make to the way in which we do politics; and, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we need to make them urgentlyvery urgently. First, we need to have an independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, because it is important that we do not set our own pay and rations. Our pay, allowances and pensions should be set, monitored, audited and administered completely independently of this House. That they have not been is one of the major things that has brought this place into disrepute.
	Nobody should be able to enrich themselves by virtue of being a Member of this House or by virtue of the allowances that they are able to claim. Nobody should be prevented, equally, from being a Member of this House because they do not have an independent fortune. Anybody should be able to represent a constituency in this country, regardless of their background. I note that the hon. Gentleman wants a swift timetableand there will be one, to bring those reforms forward. We need to see them as swiftly as possible, and that means that it would be ludicrous and inappropriate for us to have a general election now. In addition, we need to make sure that the reassessmentand, if necessary, repaymentof all hon. Members' claims back to 2004 can be done swiftly. That would surely have to be done before any general election.
	We need to look seriously at the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon about the reform of the House of Commons and its Committees. We all recognise the value of the Select Committee system, which has been around in a changing form for the past 25 or 30 years. However, we need to go a step further in making sure that those Committees have real power and an ability to transform the politics of this country. The changes to which my right hon. Friend referred this afternoon would help.
	Likewise, we need to consider timetabling and how we conduct our business. We need to look at all such matters urgently if we are to make sure that the House, which has been respected around the country through the centuries, returns to that key position.

David Heath: On the hon. Gentleman's earlier reference to Twickenham, I should say that I seem to remember being hurled rather forcibly by a second row forward at him, rather than simply collapsing on top of him. But that is not the point.
	The hon. Gentleman is now articulating a raft of reforms that some Members, on both sides, have been advocating year after yearbut those on the Treasury Bench have refused to accept them. Why should we believe now that there is a realistic timetable for introducing those reforms as a matter of urgency? If there is such a timetable, will he tell us precisely what it is?

Chris Bryant: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, some of the measures have not been around for ever and a day. Some of them have, and he also knows perfectly well that I have supported them; on many such issues, I have gone through the Lobby with the hon. Gentleman. One of the other issues is House of Lords reform. I believe that it is wrong for people who are not prepared to put themselves up for election to tell people in this country how to live their lives; that is why I believe in reform of the second Chamber.
	The most dramatic urgency relates, however, to the issue of the independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. That has not arisen until recently, but we need to proceed with it as fast as we can. It is for my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House to inform the hon. Gentleman when that will happen, but I understand that this afternoon several hon. Members have been in cross-party talks about some of these measures. I hope that we will be able to move them forward as fast as possible.
	It is vital that we continue urgent work on a second issue: the recession. Uniquely, it has hit the whole world, and profoundly so. When I was knocking on doors in my constituency during the elections last week, people were constantly raising issues about their family incomes, their savings, their jobs and their future prosperity. Those people would have been expecting the House to be debating such issues in substantial measure this afternoon. The truth is that this Government acted to shore up the banking systemnot to protect bankers, but to make sure that individuals' deposits were protected. Otherwise, people would have lost all their savings.
	This Government have been providing support for businesses, which can now defer their taxes at an important time in the economic cycle. We have introduced additional support for mortgage interest, reducing it for the unemployed so that it kicks in for mortgages of up to 200,000 rather than those up to 100,000and after 13 weeks, not 39 weeks.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks did not mention any of those issues; he did not seem to have any interest in the economic situation. Like the Leader of the Opposition, he had no time to mention any matters of substance. The issues that I have mentioned face our constituents, and we need to address them. So I say that now is not the time

Robert Smith: rose

Chris Bryant: No, I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I have very little time.
	I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by the nationalists. They pretend in political life, and yet we all know the truth that lies behind it. What is the truth in this case? They do not expect to form a Government if there is a general election. They are not intending to put up candidates across every seat in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They have no intention of forming a Government of their ownthey want to get rid of this Government to put in that lot, the Conservatives, and they should be honest to the House about it.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, absolutelythe right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and his friends should look carefully at where they are getting the cheers from.
	We know that that is the truth, because the nationalists have a record on this. Just look at 1979they did exactly the same then. Look at 1993, when they propped up a discredited Government. The truth is that they are so obsessed with independence that that is the only thing they will ever see. Of course, the leader of their partythe leader in Scotlandcould perfectly well have been in Scotland today voting on reform of the rape law; instead, he has decided to sit in here and smirk like a Cheshire cat so that he gets on television behind the leader of Plaid Cymru. Where were they when it came to the minimum wage? None of them even bothered to turn up, and yet they try to pretend that they believe in things [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Orderthe House must come to order. This debate is coming to an end, and Members who have been here throughout wish to hear the Minister's reply. There are far too many private conversations going on.

Chris Bryant: The truth of the matter is that the nationalists always vote with the Tories. Who was their latest Member to come into the House? I am glad to see him sitting therethe hon. Member for Glasgow, East (John Mason). In his first four votes, which Division lobby did he go through? Not through the lobby with the Labour party but through the lobby with the Conservatives. No wonder this year's Scottish Conservatives' conference programme said:
	For the first time in more than a decade Conservative policies are being enactedand it is here in Scotland.
	YesConservative policies are being enacted by the Scottish National party.
	So we know that the nationalists like to ride in on the Conservatives' coat tails, but the Conservatives like to ride in on their coat tails as well. They do not table their own motion but come running along like Johnny-come-latelies after that little shower. I warn the Conservatives about the nationalists, because they do not share the same principles in some respectsthe nationalists want to cut defence jobs in Scotland and in Wales. They want to see the end of Trident in Faslane. They do not support St. Athan and the new defence training academy in Wales, which would mean thousands of jobs in south Wales, including for people in my constituency. What are the nationalists in my constituency doing about armed forces day? They are saying that it is just a gimmick and they are not prepared to defend our armed forces.
	On the economy, we know what [ Interruption. ] I am about to come to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), so he can keep calm. What were his views, along with all the nationalists? They proclaimed the great arc of prosperity that was to extend across the smaller countriesIreland, Iceland and Latvia. The hon. Gentleman said that
	small country success is everywhere...Iceland...has a GDP per capita some 7,000 above Wales.
	The reality now in Iceland is that inflation is running at 18 per cent. and its economy has shrunk by 10 per cent. So we know that the nationalists' policy on the economy is absolutely nowhere. They have no suggestions and no way of making sure that this country returns to economic strength

Stewart Hosie: claimed to move the  closure (Standing Order No. 36),
	 Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Main Question accordingly put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 268, Noes 340.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Maritime Labour Convention) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 29 April, be approved. (David Wright.)
	 Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Minimum Stock of Crude Oil And/or Petroleum Products

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15910/08 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Council Directive on Minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products; and supports the Government's approach to secure practical and proportionate legislation for oil stocking to ensure the availability of oil stocks in a crisis across EU Member States. (David Wright.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

External Service

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5289/09, Commission Communication on the Development and Consolidation of the External Service: Implementation of Measures for 2008; and endorses the Government's policy of support for the developments to the European Commission's external service in 2009. (David Wright.)
	 The Deputy Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 17 June (Standing Order No. 41A).

PETITION
	  
	Planning and Development (Somerset)

Jeremy Browne: The petition is from people who wish to stop the over-development in Taunton Deane. They realise that some extra development is desirable, particularly of affordable housing, but the level of development envisaged is excessive.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Taunton constituency and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners are extremely concerned that the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West requires the creation of 21,800 new homes in Taunton Deane within the next 20 years; and notes that the residents of Taunton Deane have had no recourse to decide on the suitability of the plan locally despite the significant impact such large scale development will have on living standards in the local area.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reassess its commitment to the over development of Taunton Deane and bring forward a revised option which strikes a more appropriate balance between the need for greater affordable housing and the quality of life in Taunton Deane.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000381]

SCHOOL NURTURE GROUPS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .(David Wright.)

Jamie Reed: I welcome the Minister to her new position on the Front Bench. As someone who was elected alongside her in 2005, I know she is one of the brightest and best on the Labour Benches. I trust and believe she will do a superb job in the role she has been given.
	I pay tribute to this Government's record in improving education across the board in my constituency and in west Cumbria as a whole. The fact that attainment levels at primary and secondary schools have improved significantly since 1997 is beyond any significant doubt. In the town of Egremont in my constituency, the Government have responded to my calls for individual and specific initiatives by investing almost 30 million in the new West Lakes academy school, which is soon to begin construction; by agreeing to allocate a further 80 million of capital expenditure on secondary schools in the area; and through other routes, such as funding for the first time in the history of west Cumbria not only the university of Cumbria, but the university of Central Lancashire and the university of Manchester's Dalton facilityboth at the Westlake science park. In addition, Sure Start centres in my constituency have been an unqualified success.
	It is, however, a matter of profound regret to me and all those who care about the life chances of future generations of west Cumbrian children that the Opposition have promised to abolish Sure Start centres and slash education spending by billions should they ever form a Government. Let me be absolutely clear that the public funds being put into education in west Cumbria and my constituency in particular are without any precedent. Labour Governments make these investments because we understand the true power of education. It is through education that society is strengthened, that individuals prosper and that most of the ills facing us as a society can be cured.
	Undoubtedly, it is through the distribution of knowledge and learning that we really redistribute wealth, and that we really redistribute power and opportunity, and it is through education that we will eradicate poverty in this country. I mean not just physical or economic poverty, but the toxic and uniquely contagious poverty of ambition and aspiration that still blights so many of our communities. That is why nurture groups are so incredibly important.
	As someone who has entered public life, like the Minister, with the determination to achieve those ends, I have seen just how important nurture groups are, where they exist, in helping to achieve those policy objectives. Nurture groups provide effective support for vulnerable children and young people who experience barriers to their learning for a variety of social, emotional and academic reasons. Nurture groups help children to succeed: they improve attendance, engage parents in their child's education and build confidence and self-esteem. None of us can doubt that for our children to succeed, they must first know what success is.
	Nurture groups have been in existence for 40 years, with a proven track record of success, and can also be found in countries such as New Zealand and Canada. There are more than 1,000 nurture groups in the UK, funded variously by local authorities, schools and charitable donations. As far as I am aware, no nurture groups are funded directly by central Government or by additional grants to local education authoritiesa situation that in my view should change as soon as possible, irrespective of the straitened economic times in which we find ourselves.
	Nurture groups cover a variety of children from different social and economic backgrounds and with different educational attainment levels and abilities. There is no typical child for whom a nurture group is suitable. Rather, it is progressive teachers in supported and supportive professional environments who identify the need for nurture groups in their schools and who in turn identify those children who would benefit most from a period of nurture.
	As matters stand, the existence of nurture groups in schools in my constituency and across the country is testimony to the professional excellence demonstrated by so many of our teacherspeople such as Pamela Telford and Ann Banks at Monkwray primary school, and Pauline Lambert and Lynne McQuire at Millom infants. Kells infants and Valley primary, too, have seen the need for these groups, and across west Cumbria, Wendy Roden, Leesa Taylor, John Kirk and others have undertaken unique work. These are people who believe passionately in their own ability and in the power of education to change the lives of individuals and to improve their communities and societyand they do not and will not wait for other agencies or other people to identify problems and produce solutions. Nor should they. In short, as happens with so many successes, they have chosen not to wait for politicians to get around to solving the problems that they see daily, but to take the necessary action themselves. In my view, that initiative should be rewarded with fixed, stable funding, and the best practice with which those people are associated should be shared nationally.
	Like the Minister, I entered politics to improve the lives of my constituents, to open the doors of opportunity, and to prioritise my efforts in favour of those who need help the most. I have seen hundreds of examples of improved public services in my constituency in recent years. I have seen new dialysis units, new emergency medicine centres, new classrooms and more, and I care passionately about them all. I have also recently visited a number of nurture groups in my constituency, and I can say without exaggeration that I have never been as moved or convinced by the need for any public service.
	I have seen the lives of children being changed in front of my face. I have seen the life chances of some children unfold and expand as I have been in the classroom, and I have never seen anything like it in any school environment. At one school in my constituency, I met a little girl who used the nurture group dressing-up box to dress as a princess. The teacher gave her and other classmates a digital camera. They would take photographs, print them and display them in the classroom. The teacher told me that only weeks earlier, the little girl in question kept asking the teacher and classmates who the pretty girl in the photograph was. She could not recognise herself. She had no sense of selfno awareness of herselfand it took weeks to convince her that the girl in the photograph actually was her. As soon as that knowledge took hold, her life was changed.
	I have never seen pride like the pride that I saw in that little girl's face when she showed me the photographs of herself. I can only compare it to watching a butterfly emerge from a chrysalis. The girl did not have an easy family background. Her parents themselves had not enjoyed what could be termed a rewarding experience in education. However, the change in their daughter changed the family. I have seen children transformed by specialist care, not just emotionally but educationally.
	At every school that I have visited where these groups exist, not just the children but their parents receive the nurture that they need, and the life-changing support that, for some reason, they do not receive anywhere else. The same can be said of male pupils. I have seen primary and junior school boys win competition prizes, only to find that they are incapablephysically incapableof accepting those prizes, along with the plaudits and congratulations that they deserve. They refuse to make eye contact.
	I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) is present. He shares a constituency boundary with me, and he will be aware of what is happening in our part of the world.
	What I have described does not happen only occasionally. It happens regularly, but it does not have to be this way. It is just as important to recognise that such behaviour can develop into a culture if it is left unattended in significant numbers of children. Tragically, a generational cycle can develop. There is enough qualitative evidence to demonstrate such an issue in communities throughout the country, particularly those that have been scarred by the brutal economic transitions of the 1980s.
	As children in nurture groups learn academically and socially, they develop confidence, become responsive to others, and take pride in behaving well and in achievement. Usually after less than three school terms, more than 80 per cent. are ready to return full time to the mainstream class with which they will have kept in daily contact. When that is not possible, children are still helped by their time in nurture groups. The nature of their difficulties is better understood by their teachers, and the special help that they need can be identified and sought. This is a move that is usually welcomed by parents who have seen their children's particular educational needs become apparent.
	The House should not just take my word for it, however. In April this year, Sir Alan Steer recognised the importance of nurture groups in his report Learning Behaviour: Lessons learned. A review of behaviour standards and practices in our schools. His report contained the following recommendation:
	Head teachers report that nurture groups can be important in supporting pupils who display poor behaviour. Building on previous research DCSF should undertake an assessment of the impact of nurture groups in schools situated in areas of high deprivation. This might be via an Ofsted survey of the effectiveness of nurture groups and other additional provision in schools that supports good behaviour, an independent evaluation, or a pilot programme which could be evaluated by Ofsted.
	I agree with Sir Alan. Moreover, I believe that the evidence in support of these groups is overwhelming.
	Pulling policy levers in Whitehall will not by itself deliver the same kind of results that I have seen nurture groups achieve on the ground in our communities, on our streets, and in hearts and minds where it matters most. Having achieved so much, our Government should harness these energies and enable them to flourish further with the predictable funding they now need. Ultimately, if we do not do thisif this Government and our party do not do thisno one else will. I will therefore now write to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to ask them to include a commitment to nurture groups in the next Labour party manifesto.
	More importantly, I shall now make some specific requests of the Minister and her Department. Will her Department now make dedicated financial provision for the funding of nurture groups wherever they are required? Will her Department now undertake a national study or a series of pilot studies where nurture groups exist in areas of social deprivation? Will representatives of her Department meet with the Nurture Group Network to discuss its work and how best to take this forward? Finally, will the Minister please come and see for herself the remarkable results achieved by nurture groups in my constituency? Raised attainment levels, record numbers of new schools, dramatically improved pay and conditions for teachers, an information and communications technology revolution, record numbers of people in education and university, and the magnificent work of our Sure Start centres: this is a record to be proud of, and that nobody else would be capable of. Let us finish the job, however; let us now give our nurture groups the support they deserve.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) on securing the debate, and I thank him for his very kind words at the start of his speech.
	I know from my hon. Friend's eloquent speech this evening that he shares my commitment to excellence in education and is dedicated to ensuring the very best provision for the children and young people of his constituency. The topic of this debate is of the utmost importance to this Government, because we have made a promise that we are going to make this the best country in the world for children to grow up in. That means not only offering young people the best education possible, but ensuring their welfare at every stage.
	As we outlined in Every Child Matters, we want children's lives to be happy, healthy and safe. That is why our Department is revolutionising the way that children are looked after in and out of school. This is crucial not only to a child's broader development, but to their educational attainment. If a child feels happy, secure and safe, they are more likely to come to school ready to learn. Schools now work more closely with health services, police and the voluntary sector than ever before to make sure that every aspect of children's well-being is supported. Importantly, Every Child Matters gave the opportunity for children and parents to have their thoughts and concerns heard by the Government, so we could construct the safest and most effective ways to meet the needs of every child and every parent. Putting the voice of the child and young person at the heart of the debate so it informs everything we do is absolutely essential if services are truly to meet their needs.
	The children's plan has taken that even further, setting out a vision for greater partnerships between schools and children services. We now have more than 3,000 Sure Start centres, offering practical advice and support for both families and children. More schools than ever before are offering extended services to meet the wider needs of children, including breakfast clubs, study support groups and easier access to specialist services for those who need extra support. We want to meet the needs of every child, to help them achieve their best. The Labour Government have a proud record on this, which stands up to independent scrutiny and will certainly be under threat if there is a change of Government.
	We know that what happens to a child in the first few years of life has a huge effect on their future development and life chances, so making sure that every child's needs are met as soon as they start primary school is of utmost importance. When children are experiencing difficulties, early intervention is vital. As my hon. Friend set out so effectively, nurture groups support children who are showing signs of behavioural, emotional and social difficulties. They are a place where pupils can spend all or most of the day, normally over a period of no longer than a year. They can create a predictable and secure environment for children to engage with their learning and to overcome their behavioural problems. As they begin to improve, they will gradually spend more and more time in mainstream classes until they can be fully integrated again into a typical classroom.
	Nurture groups are not new, and indeed the Department has recognised their valuable contribution to the well-being of pupils for some time. The 1997 Green Paper Excellence for All set out a programme for improving special educational needs provision. In particular, it said that nurture groups offer a promising approach to the education of children with learning difficulties. Since then, the groups have flourished all over the country, and we have heard this evening about those in my hon. Friend's constituency.
	As my hon. Friend mentioned, nurture groups were an essential part of Sir Alan Steer's final report on behaviour, published in April this year, in which he recognised the importance of early intervention in raising behaviour standards in schools. He recommended that we undertake an assessment of the impact of nurture groups in areas of high deprivation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a commitment to act on all the recommendations in Sir Alan's report, and we intend to publish our detailed implementation plan later this summer. I hope that that answers the particular question that my hon. Friend posed at the end of his speech.
	There are, of course, other effective ways that behavioural and emotional problems can be addressed across the whole school, so that all children can understand the importance of managing their behaviour. That is because behavioural problems can have a knock-on effect on all students and staff, not just the individuals concerned. Students need to learn to be able to value and respect their teachers and one another so that good manners can go beyond the classroom, out into the corridor and into the playground.
	Our social and emotional aspects of learning programmeor SEALdevelops the social and emotional skills of all pupils through a whole-school approach, across the curriculum. It is designed to develop pupils' sense of self-awareness and the ability to manage their feelings in a constructive and positive way. By developing empathy, social awareness, motivation and social skills, it enables them to get along better with others and to become more responsible citizens. SEAL helps schools to create a safe and emotionally healthy school environment where pupils can learn effectively. Through well-crafted assemblies, informed lesson plans and colourful source material, primary schoolchildren are able to identify with their emotions and understand that the way in which they express their feelings can affect their fellow pupils. Its effects can be felt in the corridors as well as the classroom.
	If we get children off on the right foot at the very start of their school careers, their emotional well-being can develop in parallel with their educational achievements. These skills are an important component of personal, social and health education, helping pupils to become responsible citizens. Such an approach has worked well for many schools, and about 80 per cent. of primary schools now use the SEAL programme. My Department is committed to ensuring that such skills are addressed in every school, and we provide 10 million a year to local authorities to fund training in SEAL for school staff. We have also decided to make personal, social, health and economic educationPSHEa statutory subject to be taught to all children, including primary schoolchildren.
	Children will one day leave school and start work in the wider world, where social skills are the glue that holds down a good job, rewarding friendships, a roof over their head and a steady source of income. Teaching PSHE in the classroom allows pupils to see the benefits of applying these skills to their current lives, and puts them on the right track for life. I hope that that goes some way to persuading my hon. Friend that we are not complacent when it comes to effective ways to improve pupils' behaviour and social skills.
	My hon. Friend asked specifically about direct funding. As I have explained, money is already provided for the SEAL programme, but there is no specific central funding for nurture groups. By law, local authorities must of course provide a fair and equal education to all children in their local area, regardless of their social and economic background, but it is for each local authority to decide how best to meet that duty. Local authorities receive money from the Government through the dedicated schools grant for school funding, which takes into account issues such as social deprivation. We have committed to supply 28.9 billion of funding this academic year to local authorities through the grant, and Cumbria's share of the funding was 258.7 million.
	I know that Cumbria local authority have provided pump-priming funding and infrastructure support to schools looking to develop nurture groups, as well as professional development and support for school staff. As we have heard tonight, the groups are having a positive effect on the behaviour of pupils. There is no reason why other local authorities that want to support nurture groups cannot follow the good example of Cumbria.
	We encourage local authorities to discuss their ideas with schools, governors and parents to decide what is best for the schools in their local area. That is what our Department means when we talk about the 21st-century school: a community coming together to work out the best way to reach the needs of their local pupils.
	It is for each local authority to determine what provision best meets the needs of the children in their local area, together with parents, teachers and pupils. Nurture groups have a real role to play in getting children back into the classroom, back into learning and back on track, but they are not the only answer and local authorities need the flexibility to make decisions about where they direct their funding to the benefit of all children in their area.
	It is not just the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that children's well-being and wider development are supported, that they have the right support around them from education and children's services alike, and that they have the right sort of support. That is everybody's responsibilityit is the responsibility of central Government, local government, children's services professionals, teachers, heads, parents and even pupils. By working together in partnership to make the most of every resource our communities have to offer local children and parents, we will realise the vision of a world-class education system, first-class children's services and a generation of adults who are skilled workers, responsible citizens and well-rounded individuals.
	Finally, I would be delighted to meet the Nurture Group Network. I would also very much like to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and to see nurture groups in operation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.